21. Review: . Status of Rangeland Resources and Strategies for Improvements in Nepal

21. Review:
. Status of Rangeland Resources and Strategies for Improvements in Nepal

Rameshwar Singh Pande
(Published in: Pande, RS, 2009. Review:Status of Rangeland Resources and Strategies for Improvements in Nepal, CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 2009 4, No. 047 http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews )
Abstract
The livelihood of the Himalayan Sherpa people depends on rangeland based livestock farming in Nepal. In above 2,500 m altitude contribution of rangelands in livestock feed supply is more than 65 percent. Rangeland comprises about 11.5 percent of the total land resources on Nepal and over 98 percent are located in high Mountains & Himalayan regions. Nepal is rich in biodiversity and over 180 native species of grasses and legumes are found. Major rangelands vegetations are Tropical (Phragmitis- Saccharum- Imperata type), Sub-tropical (Themeda- Arundinella type), Temperate (Andropogon type), Sub-alpine (Danthonia type), Alpine (Kobresia type) and Steppe. The production and productivity of rangelands range from 0.12 to 3.2 mt DM/ha. Only 64 percent of the rangelands are accessible. Most of the rangeland are over stocked and severely grazed out. The estimated carrying capacity ranges from 0.06 to 1.4 LU/ha. The stocking rate on rangelands is 3.5 times to 37 times high. Indigenous techniques for the rangelands management are not keeping pace with the increased livestock population. Traditionally, practiced transfrontier pasturing between Tibet and Nepal has been closed by the Tibetan/Chinese government for Nepalese migratory herds effective from 1990, which compelled the Nepal government to initiate various rangeland development activities to meet the feed supply for Himalayan herds. Till now only 0.5 % of the total rangelands of the high Himalayan regions have been improved. Major challenges on rangeland development/management are dispute on ownership/users’ right on rangelands resources, lack of basic information on rangelands, deteriorating conditions of rangelands and associated forests, poor infrastructural facilities, remoteness, ad hock collection of grazing fees, lack of co-relation between stocking rate vs carrying capacity, community awareness, lack of support services, invasion of rangelands, poor people's participation, poor research and extension, high cost of development, poor supply/production of planting materials are some major problems for rangelands improvements. Since, 1990 UNDP supported 'High Altitude Pasture and Fodder Development Project' phased out, no significant work has been done to improve the pastures of Himalayan regions. The pasture improvement programmes should be continued to cover much more areas of indigenous rangelands. Legume components in the natural rangelands of Nepal are negligible. Incorporation of the legume in natural rangelands, improvement of physical facilities, opening new rangelands/use of unutilised community pasture areas, adoption of proper grazing management, closing of the rangelands from the grazing animals are some recommendations to improve the rangelands productivity.

Keywords: Rangeland, Himalaya, Yak, Nepal, Sherpa,

Review methodology:
Documents, reports related to rangeland resources, livestock production, feeds and fodder situations and other relevant issues were published from Department of Livestock Services (DLS), Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), International Centre for Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Institute of Agriculture and Animal Sciences (IAAS), Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MFSC) and others were studied, reviewed, analysed and documented to prepare this paper.

Review:
1. Importance of Rangelands in Nepal
Rangelands are important resource of feed for domestic as well as wild ungulates in Nepal (Figure 1 & 2). Rangelands are abundant in high altitude Himalayan areas of Nepal. Overall rangeland contributes 11.5 percent in total livestock feed supply. In high altitude Himalayan areas above 2,500 m contribution of rangelands in feed supply is more than 65 percent [1]. Rangelands are rich sources of herbaceous vegetation. Many rare medicinal plants and herbs are found in Himalayan rangelands. Most of the rangelands are found as a part of watershed areas contributing significantly on soil water conservation as well. The physical conditions of these rangelands not only contribute to the feed supply to the grazing animals but also influence the natural resource management and bio-diversity conservation.
2 Areas and Distribution of Rangelands, Nepal
It is estimated that over 1.7 million ha of land is considered as rangelands which comprises approximately 11.5 percent of the total land resources on Nepal [1] (LRMP, 1986). Area of the rangelands increases so as the elevation. Out of total area under rangelands, over 98 percent is located in Hills and High Mountains and less than 2 percent rangelands are found in plain below 1000 m altitudes are mainly confined inside the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. The percentage of rangelands in different ecological region is presented in (Table 1).

Table 1: Type of Rangelands according to the Ecological Belt, Nepal
Description Ecological belt Nepal
Mountains Terai Hills
Area (ha) 10,82,232.0 74,100.9 5,45,334.9 17,01,670.8
Percent 63.6 4.4 32.0 100
Climate Temperate Tropical Sub-tropical -
Source: [1] LRMP, 1986

3.0 Vegetation Type of Rangelands, Nepal
Due to the extreme climate variations, different types of rangeland are found in Nepal. Nepal is rich in biodiversity; over 6,500 species of flowering plants have been recorded to be found [2] (Forestry Master Plan, 1989; [3] (MFSC, 2006). It was estimated that over 180 species of different species of grasses and legumes are found. Most of these species are grasses; only few species are legumes such as Astragalus spp, Medicago SP, Desmodium spp and others. On the basis of physiographic and ecological distribution of rangelands, [4] Livestock Master Plan (1993) identified following type of vegetation:
• Tropical: Phragmitis- Saccharum- Imperata type
• Sub-tropical: Themeda- Arundinella type
• Temperate: Andropogon type
• Sub-alpine: Danthonia type
• Alpine: Kobresia type
• Steppe:

3.1 Tropical Rangelands Vegetation (Phanta):
The Plain areas of Nepal has tropical types of vegetation. Such types of vegetation are found up to the elevation below 1,000 m, where the climate is humid - warm tropical. In this zone, summer is hot (35-38oC) and cool winter. Rainfall is quite heavy during monsoon (July to September). Average rainfall is 1917 mm/yr. Most of the growth of the grasses takes place during monsoon period. Humid tropical rangelands are more confined in the national park, wildlife reserves of Terai belt, bordering to India. The rangelands of this zone are called "Phanta" in Nepali. The characteristic feature of such rangeland is the dominance of tall grasses such as Phragmites, Sacharum, and Imperata spp. These grasses have low feeding value, however, these grasses provides excellent shelter to the wildlife. The rangelands of this zone are associated with the evergreen hardwood forest.
• Major grasses: Andropogon pumilus, Bothriochloa intermedia, Bothriochoa odorata, Chrysopogan aciculatus, Cynoden dactylon, Desmostachys bipinnata, Hymenachne pseudoinlerrupta, Imperata cylindrica, Ischaemmum timorense, Narenga porphyroecoma, Panucum natatum, Paspalum conjugatum, Phragmites karka, Saccharum arundinaceum, Sacchrrum bengalense, Saccharum spotaneum, Sclerostachya fusca, Sporobolus indicus, Vetiveria zizaniodes and others.
• Major fodder tree and shrubs: Artocarpus lakoocha, Ficus bengalensis, Ficus religiosa, Zizyphus jubuta, Tamarindus indica, Bahunia variagata, Dalbergia sissoo and others.

Tropical rangelands are rapidly disappearing. For example, most of the tropical rangelands outside the national parks and wildlife reserves are converted into cultivable lands. Remnants of these species can be found in the uncultivated barren lands, river and roadside. No attempts have been made to evaluate the feeding value of these grasses in Nepal. As these grasses are coarse and fibrous, the feed value is considered as low. Besides the animal feed these grasses also used for thatching, to prepare household materials such as broom, mats and for paper mills. The Dry Matter (DM) production is considered is about 3-4 Mt/ha of herbaceous forage and about 250 kg of browse per hectare [5] Alirol, 1979; [6]Archer, 1987; [7] Archer, 1990; [8] FAO, 1990) [9] Grela, A. and Sharma, K.P. 1991 Wide ranges of tree/shrub species grown in this region are used fodder source.

3.2 Sub-tropical Rangelands Vegetation
This type of rangelands is found in the Middle hills between the elevations of 1,000-2,000 m. In this zone, sub-tropical climate is found. The average temperature is 15- 20oC and rainfall is 1,700 mm/yr. These are the open grazing-lands appears in a small patches associated with the evergreen forests around the vicinity of human dwellings. The forest vegetation is Chir pine (Pinus roxburghii); Chilaune (Schima wallichii) and Castenopsis spp). These rangelands are developed by clearing the forest trees for domestic use. The characteristic feature of these rangelands is the domination of the Arundinella; Themeda, Thysanolaena and other grass species. Most of the rangelands suitable for crop cultivation are converted into the croplands.
Most of these rangelands are heavily grazed out and are in poor conditions. The productivity of these rangelands are estimated to be about 1.5 to 2.0 mt DM/ha of herbaceous forage and 300 kg/ha of browse materials [6] Archer, 1987; [7] Archer, 1990; [8] FAO, 1990); [9] Grela, A. and Sharma, K.P. 1991. [10] Dhaubhadel, T.S., Tiwari, B.N. 1992. The feed quality of these grasses is of medium quality. A list of major species of these types of rangelands is as follow:
• Major grasses: Andropogon pumilis, Apluda mutica, Arundinell bengalensis, Arundinella nepalensis, Bothriochloa intermedia, Bothriochloa decumbens, Chrysopogon fulvus, Chrysopogon gryllus, Chrysopogon jwarancusa, Capillipedium parviflorum, Cymbopogon microtheca, Cymbopogon stracheyi, Cynodon dactylon, Dimeria fuscescens, Digitaria setigera, Digitoria cruciata, Eragrostiella leioptera, Eragrostis nigra, Eulaliopsis binata, Eleusina indica, Heleropogon contortus, Isachna globusa, Ischaemum baratum, Oplismenus compositus, Paspalidium flavidum, Paspalum dilitatum, Paspalum scrobiculatum, Penisetum clandestinum, Penisetum pedicellatum, Perotis hordeiformis, Polygonum spp, Sporobolus fertilis, Thysanolaena maxima and others.
• Major fodder trees/shrubs are: Artocarpus lakoocha, Bauhinia purpurea, Boehmeria rugulosa, Bomax malabaricum, Utea brondosa, Erythrina variegata, Eugenia jambolana, Ficus religiosa, Garuga pinnta, Litsea monopetala, Morus alba, Premna spp, Terminalia chebula, Terminalia tomentosa, Ziziphus spp and others.

3.3 Temperate Rangelands Vegetation (Kharka):
This type of rangelands is found in between the elevation of 2,000 - 3,000 m. In this zone summer, is mild and winter is cold, average temperature is 10-15oC. Average rainfall is 1500-1700 mm/yr. This type of rangelands is characterised by the domination of Andropogan spp. The most common species such as Pennisetum flaccidum (Nepali name: Dhimso) is used to make hay by the farmers of these region. This rangelands are associated with the evergreen oak (Quercus spp and Pinus excelsa) forest. Study on species composition of natural rangelands at Guthichaur Sheep Farm, Jumla in June 1989 showed that Chrysopogan grylus and Arundinella hookerii are the major indigenous grass species either in caged or un-caged areas. The Relative Density was 54.5 and 33.2 percent respectively in the caged areas, whereas in the un-caged area the relative density was 70.0 and 18.4 percent of the above-mentioned two species. [11] Singh, et al 1990.

The major species are found in such rangelands are as follow:
• Major grasses: Agropyron canaliculatum, Agropyron semicostatum, Agrostis canina, Agrostis falipus, Agrostis micrantha, Agrostis muriantha, Agrostis pilosula, Anaphalis contorta, Andropogon pumilus, Andropogen tritis, Arundenella hookerii, Brachypodium sylvaticum, Bromus ramorus, Bothriochloa bladhii, Calamagrostis epigejos, Calamagrostis emodensis, Calamagrostis pseudophragmites , Chrysopogon gryllus, Cymbopogon distans, Cymbopogon microtheca, Danthonia jacqnemontii, Deschampsia caespitosa, Deyeuscia scabrescens, Digiterai spp, Eragrostis nigra, Erigeron alpinus, Elymus caninus, Eulalia mollis, Festuca gigantea, Festuca ovina, Festuca rubra, Helictotrichon asperum, Keoleria cristata, Muhenbergia spp, Miscanthus nepalensis, Oryzopsis aequiglumis, Paspalum spp, Pennisetum flaccidum, Poa pratensis, Poa alpina, Poa annua, Polygonum spp, Seteria pallidefusca, Schizachyrium delarvayi, Stippa concinna, Taraxacum officinale, Themeda quadrivalis, Thymus serphyllum, Trisetum spicatumm, Trisetum micans and others.
• Major legumes: Desmodium spp, Medicago denticulata, Medicago lupinina, Pretropis cytosoides, Trigonella emodi, Vicia spp and others.
• Major fodder tree/shrubs: Alnus nepalensis, Bassia butyracea, Bauhinia purpurea, Brassaiopsis hainla, Grewia tiliaefolia, Saurauia nepaulensis, Ficus nemoralis, Buddleja asiatia, Ficus clavata, Wandlandia exerta, Castanopsis indica, Celtis australis, Eurya spp and others.

Temperate rangelands have major contribution in high altitude livestock production. The productivity of these rangelands is estimated about 1- 1.5 mt DM/ha of herbaceous forage and 1,500 kg of browse/ha [6] Archer, 1987; [7] Archer, 1990; [8] FAO, 1990).

3.4 Sub-alpine Rangelands Vegetation:
These rangelands are found in between the elevation of 3,000 - 4,000 m. The region is semi-arid, average temperature is 3 – 10C, and annual rainfall is very low varies from 150-500 mm/yr depending on location. These rangelands are the important sources of animal feed for the migratory stock. Nomadic herds of yak, chauris and sheep heavily depend on these grazinglands during summer. The grasses are associated with Rhododendrons, Betula spp, Tsuga dumosa, Danthonia, Stipa spp.

The major vegetation is as follow:
 Major grasses: Agrostis inaequiglumis, Agrostis pilosula, Agrostis tenuis, Anthoxanthum hookerii, Arrhanatherum elatius, Bromus himalaicus, Calamagrostis emodensis, Calamagrostis pulchella, Crotalaria albida, Danthonia schneideri, Duthiea nepalensis, Elymus canaliculatus, Elymus dehuricus, Elymus nuleris, Elymus schrenleiannus, Festuca eumminsii, Festuca leptopogon, Festuca omina, Helictotricton virescens, Medicago lupina, Poa alpina, Poa ludens, Poa polycolea, Stipa concinna, Stipa duthiea, Stipa koelzei, Stipa regeliana, Stipa seliria, Triluria oreophilia, Trisetum spicatum and others.
 Major legumes: Medicago lupina, Vicia tetrasperma and others.
 Major Shrubs: Berberis, Caragana, Junipers, Potentiall, Rosa, Spiraea and others.
 Major trees: Rhododendron spp, Juniperus spp, Betula spp, Rosa spp, Potentilla spp, Berberis and others.
 Major fodder tree/shrubs: Albizzia leblek, Betula spp, Brassaiopsis glomerulata, Castanopsis tribuloides, Ilex dipyrena, Machilus odoratissima, Quercus semicarpifolia, Quercus lamellosa, Symplocos spp and others.

The productivity of this rangeland is about 1.5 t DM/ha of the herbaceous foliage. [6] Archer, 1987; [7] Archer, 1990; [8] FAO, 1990).

3.5 Alpine Rangelands Vegetation:
Such type of rangelands is situated above 4,000 m and is covered with snow most of the year. During summer when snow melts the grasses grow very quickly and complete the life cycle. During these period these rangeland provides 3 - 4 months of grazing to the nomadic herds of Yak, Chauris and sheep.
A small of different plant community are common in this region. Department of Medicinal Plants reported that in alpine meadow of Langtang Valley the major species were Cortia depressa and Kobresia spp. In the Cortia type meadow 40-80 percent of the coverage was occupied by Cortia depressa and the subsidiary species were Potentilla pedunculosa, Primula obliqua, Carex spp and Geranium polyanthes. Whereas in the Kobresia type meadow, Kobresia spp occupied 40-90 percent of the coverage and the subsidiary species were varying in different sites. In the slopes the meadow were dominated with gramineous vegetation. The major species were Carex spp, Agrostis and Poa spp. On the level ground of open meadow Caltha palustris was a dominant species. The abundance of Caltha spp on well-grazed rangelands may be due to the unpalatability of this species to the animals. Caltha could be poisonous to the livestock. The other major species on level ground was Potentilla coriandifolia and others [12] Department of Medicinal Plants (1976)

On the exposed ridge the dominant species was Oxygraphis gracialis. Whereas on gravely slopes with mosey ground cover Bistorta vaccinifolia vegetation was common. The major type of vegetation is as follow:
• Major grasses: Agrostis pilosula, Androsace lehmani, Carex spp Cortia depressa, Elymus nutans Kobrasa hookerii, Kobresia nepalensis, Poa alpina, Poa attenuata, Potentilla argyrophylla and others.
• Major forbs: Astragalus spp, Galium spp, Geranium nepalensis, Plantago lanceolata, Potentilla spp, Saxifraga spp, Taraxacum sp. Thymus serpyllum, Trifolium repens Vicia spp and others.
• Major shrubs: Berberis spp, Juniperus communis, Rhodendron spp, Rosa spp, Salix spp and others.

The productivity of the herbaceous forage is about 1.5 mt/ha. [6] Archer, 1987; [7] Archer, 1990; [8] FAO, 1990). Major Plant species found in the Langtang Valley [12] (Department of Medicinal Plant, 1976) (Table-2)

Table 2 Vegetational composition of Langtang Valley, Nepal
Type Alt m Coverage % # Spp
Cortia depressa 3,880 88 21
Kobresia pygmaea 3,900 98 11
Caltha palustris 3,950 95 10
Potentilla spp 4,030 95 7
Source: [12] Department of Medicinal Plant, 1976

3.6 Steppe Rangelands Vegetation:
The northern side of the Dhaulagiree/Annapurna Himalayan range (Manang, Mustang and Dolpa) an arid, treeless plateau; is categorized as steppe zone and the elevation ranges from 2,500 to 5,000 m. This entire zone is dry and receives rain less than 500 mm/annum. Wind erosion is quite common; a high velocity wind blows during afternoon. The soil of the region is severely eroded with loss of fine particles and organic material. Most of the areas are denuded and bare ground. The vegetation cover is sparse and poor in quality. The major vegetation type is as follows:
• Major grasses: Andropogon tritis, Aristida spp, Calamagrostis spp, Crysopogon stellera, Cymbopogon stracheyi, Danthonia cachemyriana, Deyeuxia holciformis, Deyeuxia pulchella, Festuca ovina, Melica jacquemontii, Melica scaberrima, Orinus thordii, Oryzopsis lateralis, Pennisetum flaccidum, Poa alpigena, Poa pagophila, Poa poophagorum, Rumex nepalensis, Stippa spp and others.
• Legume: Medicago falcata and others.
• Major forbs: Astragalus spp, Medicago falcata, Nepata elata, Polygonum spp, Sambucus wightiana , Taraxacum spp, Thymus serpyllum, Viola spp and others.
• Major shrubs: Artemisia maritima, Berberis spp, Caragana brevispina, Caragana gerardiana, Ephedra gerardiana, Lonicera spinosa, Rosa sericea and others.
• Major trees: Juniperus squamata, Pinus wallichiana and others.

Scattered bushes of Caragana spp are observed to be appearing on such rangelands [13] Basnyat (1988) observed that grasses and legumes grow inside these bushes and complete its lifecycle by protecting from wind erosion and grazing. The productivity of these rangelands is very low and feed quality is also considered as low. Kandel et al reported the plant composition and the productivity of the rangelands of Mustang regions [14] Kandel et al. (1988) in (Table 3).

Table 3. Plant Composition and DM yield at Mustang, Nepal
Plant Species Muktinath
(Alt 3610 m) Ghami
(Alt 3740) Lho-Manthang
(Alt. 3930m)
DM Kg/ha Cover % DM
Kg/ha Cover % DM kg/ha Cover %
Rosa sericea 1,116 35.2 - - - -
Caragana spp 511 16.3 216.0 40.2 232.2 28.2
Artimisia sp 435 13.5 181.7 33.8 201.6 24.8
Cotoneaster sp 195 6.2 - - - -
Stippa spp 234 7.4 - - - -
M. falcata 93 3 - - 22.3 2.8
P.flaccidium 72 2.2 49.6 9.2 67.3 8.3
Anaphalis sp 190 6.1 14.4 2.7 - -
S.hamaefasme 84 2.7 - - - -
E.gerardiana 101 3.2 - - - -
Potentilla spp - - 1.4 8.0 67.3 8.3
S.sponteneum - - 42.9 8.0 - -
Others 160 4.3 31.6 5.9 - -
Average Production 290 - 76.8 - 116.3 -
Source: Adapted from [14] Kandel et al. (1988).

4.0 Rangelands Production and Utilisation
4.1 Productivity of Rangelands:
The quality and quantity of fodder produced in natural rangelands are very poor, on an average pasture production range from 0.12 Mt DM/ha to 3.2 mt DM/ha [5] Alirol, 1979; [6] Archer, 1987; and [15] Shrestha et al, 1990). Similarly, FAO estimate that pasture production is more in per-humid rangelands compared to the other climatic zone [16] FAO (1990) (Table 4). Similarly, an experiment was carried out to estimate DM production of native rangelands of two different sites at Solukhumbu area, Syangboche (elevation 3720-3780 m) and Tauche (elevation 4220-4400 masl). Mean DM yield recorded in September 1990 was 1010 kg DM/ha at Tauche and 1440 kg DM/ha at Syangboche [16] FAO (1990). (Table -4)

Table 4 Pasture Production from Different types rangelands
Types of rangelands Yield mt DM/ha
Per humid rangeland 3.0-4.0
Semi humid rangelands 1.0-1.5
Semi arid rangeland 0.15-0.035
Per humid/humid forest 8.75
Sub-humid forest 0.50
Source: [16] FAO, 1990

Pasture production is much more depends on altitude and ecological zone in natural state of growth. In the high altitude regions, above the tree line rangelands are the main vegetation. The climate is too cold and unsuitable for tree growth. The growing season is very short. For example, in Syangboche region vegetational growth starts from late April – first May depending on the initiation of the spring and ends towards mid Nov to mid Dec, which gives average 175- 204 days of vegetation growth period [9] (Grela and Sharma, 1991). Wiart found that pasture production was highest at 2700 m altitude compared to 2000 m; 3,700 and 4,000 m. Total DM yield was 3.2, 2.02, 2.03 and 2.06 Mt DM/ha respectively; on the basis of 3 cut per year in the central regions of Nepal [17] Wiart (1983). Shrestha et al reported that annual DM production is approximately 3.6 Mt DM/ha in Terthum district of eastern Nepal at elevation 2040 - 2150 m and Taplejung (altitude 2,450 - 2,630 m). Similarly under Jiri conditions the fodder yield was 3 Mt DM/ha and the growing season was for 5 months [15] Shrestha et al (1990) (Table 5).

Table 5: Production Pattern of Native pasture (kg DM/ha).
Months Taplejung
Alt. 2450-2630 m Terhathum
Alt.2040-2150 m Jiri ( Alt 1935 m)
Jan 175.0 101.5 0.0
Feb 93.6 68.0 0.0
March 0.0 60.3 0.0
April 234.8 55.7 0.0
May 293.2 0.0 0.0
June 842.1 64.5 1000
July 212.8 0.0 700
August 588.1 0.0 600
September 516.8 835 300
October 284.1 300 400
November 140.0 306 0.0
December 161.0 0.0 0.0
Total 4041.8 1791 3000
Source: [15] Shrestha et al, 1990,

Paudyal and Bauer found that in most of the kharka at altitude 2200 to 3,999 m in Sagarmatha National Park the grass cover was 40-50 percent. And, most of the pasture was at the height below 30 cm [18] Paudyal and Bauer (1988). Many exotic pasture species introduced in Nepal. The productivity of these pastures varies according to the cultivar used as well as the management practices. Mono- cultivation of ryegrass at Jumla yielded 12.6 Mt/ha [11] Singh et al 1990). Similarly, cocksfoot 6.5 mt/ha at Jiri [19] Panday et al 1990).

4.2 Production and Utilization of Pastures:
The total production of fodder from the rangelands is 5067,963 MT DM. A large quantity of forage lost due to inaccessibility to harvest and/or due to under utilization by the animals. It is estimated that only 64 percent of the rangelands are accessible. Rest are inaccessible due to steepness, lack of trail, lack of drinking water, rocks and others. Pasture production from the accessible rangelands is only 3241428.5 MT DM. Furthermore, whole quantity of pasture produced in accessible rangelands may not be utilized by/for the livestock due to seasonality of growth, migratory system of grazing, snow fall, rain, plant senescence and others. It is estimated that only 74.4 percent of the pasture produced in accessible area are utilized. When compared to the total pasture production, only 2413160.7 MT DM , which is 47.6 percent, are assumed to be available for grazing stock [20] Pande, 1994; [21] Pande, 1997. (Table 6).

Table 6: Fodder production and utilization from rangelands
Description Ecological belt Nepal
Himal Hills Terai
Area of rangelands (ha) 10,82,235 5,45,335 74,101 17,01,671
Fodder yield (mt DM / ha) 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.98
Total fodder (mt DM/yr) 3246705 1636005 185252.5 5067962.5
Accessible % 60 70 80 64.1
Accessible (ha) 649341 381734.5 59280.8 1090356.3
Accessible fodder (Mt DM/yr) 1948023 1145203.5 148202.0 3241428.5
Utilization % 70 80 90 47.6
Utilized fodder Mt/DM/yr 1363616.1 916162.8 133381.8 2413160.7
Based on [20] Pande, 1994; [21] Pande, 1997.

4.3 Nutritive Value of Pastures
The nutritive value of the pasture depends on vegetation type and season of availability. The pasture produced in the lower zone is less nutritious and tends to be matured earlier compared to the alpine pastures. The alpine pastures are very nutritious. The average CP content is found 10.5 percent [12] Dhaubhadel and Tiwari, 1992). Most of the migratory herd gain weight and the breeding take place while grazing on the alpine pastures. The nutritive value of the alpine pastures is presented in (Table 7)

Table 7: Nutritive value of the alpine pastures (Nutrients in %)
Nutrients August September Mean
Dry Matter (DM) 16.1 16.1 16.1
Crude Protein (CP) 10.9 9.5 10.5
Crude Fat (CF) 1.4 1.8 1.6
Total ash 5.5 7.1 6.3
ADF 35.7 38.6 37.2
Organic matter 94.7 92.9 93.8
Nitrogen 1.74 1.52 1.63
Source: [12] Dhaubhadel and Tiwari (1992)

Calculation of DM and CP percentage of the natural alpine pastures: The alpine pastures remain most succulent and nutritious during the months of June to September. During these period, the DM percent is less than 25 and CP percent is in the peak. As the plant mature percentage of DM increases and reaches up to 80 percent during the months of February [15] Shrestha, et al ,1990 (Table 8).

Table 8: Monthly variation of DM and CP % of the alpine pastures
Months DM % CP %
January 70 -
February 80 -
March 67 -
April
May 40 11.6
June 30 12.7
July 22 14.4
August 22 14.0
September 25 -
October 30 12.4
November 34 12.8
December 46 8.6
Source: [15] Shrestha, et al ,1990

5.0 Stocking Rate and Carrying Capacity
Most of the available land resources are over stocked beyond its carrying capacity. Carrying capacity and stocking rate vary within the region. There is a lack of systematic study to evaluate carrying capacity of grazing areas for different stocks for the different ecological belts of Nepal. Alirol (1979) estimated that the carrying capacity is 1.4 LU/ha for Kalinchok region [5} Alirol, 1979. Whereas Archer estimated that the carrying capacity for the high altitude regions are no more than 0.06 LU/ha/yr [6] Archer 1987. In the recent study at Terhathum district, Eastern Nepal (elevation 1500-2900m) Shrestha et al estimated that the carrying capacity is 1.7 adult cattle/ha [15] Shrestha et al 1990 (Table-9)

Table 9: Number of Livestock per Unit of Land
Description Ecological belt Nepal
Mountains Hills Terai
Livestock # 24,31,237 92,97,569 55,91,327 1,73,20,133
Livestock unit (LU) 6,25,558.1 28,27,049.8 18,74,270.0 53,26,877.9
Total land (TL) 51,86,180.8 61,52,459.9 34,09,862.5 1,47,48,503.2
LU/TL 0.12 0.46 0.55 0.36
Agricultural land (AL) 4,80,171.9 19,55,836.6 15,74,548.1 40,10,556.6
LU/AL 1.3 1.45 1.19 1.33
Rangelands (RL)(ha) 10,82,232.0 5,45,334.9 74,100.9 17,01,607.8
LU/RL 0.58 5.18 25.29 3.13
Carrying capacity of rangelands 0.96 0.8 0.68 0.90
Forest land (FL) 14,87,790.1 32,15,969.6 16,02,683.3 63,06,443.0
LU/FL 0.42 0.88 1.17 0.84
Carrying capacity of forest 0.93 0.85 0.68 0.82
Source: Livestock Population: [22] CBS, 2207; Agricultural, rangeland, forest land: [1] LRMP, 1988.

Most of the rangelands are over stocked beyond its carrying capacity and are severely grazed out. The stocking rate on agricultural land is probably highest in the world. Based on standard livestock unit (LU: 400 kg body weight [23] Rajbhandary, HB and Shah SG). Overall stocking rate on total land area is 0.36 LU per ha of total land. Similarly, on agricultural land the stocking rate is 1.33. The stocking rate is highest in Middle belt compared to Southern and Northern belt. Theoretical calculation of the stocking rate reveals that compared to the total landmass of Nepal and/or agricultural land only the stocking rate is relatively high on rangelands resources. Mean stocking rate is 3.1 LU per ha of rangelands. As the rangelands in the Southern belt is minimal the stocking rate is very high i.e. 25.3 LU.
Compared to the stocking rate the carrying capacity of these grazing areas are very low. Overall stocking rate on rangelands resources is 3.5 times high. In the Middle belt the stocking rate is over 37 times high. Contrary to the Southern and Middle belt the stocking rate in Northern belt is less than carrying capacity. It is mainly due to the abundance of rangelands and low population of livestock.
The differences in the estimates of the carrying capacity might be due to the measures used to quantify the carrying capacity. However, all the data presented above are estimates and most of the data represents certain regions only. The relatively high carrying capacity of the grazing areas reported by Shrestha et al might be due to good management because the grazing lands were privately owned.

6.0 Rangelands Management
Indigenous techniques for the rangelands management is exist in Nepal but the techniques are not keeping pace with the increased livestock population and by the closure of Tibetan rangelands for Nepalese migratory herds.
In the traditional system of rangelands management only resting and burning have been adopted. However, due to high grazing pressure and lack of responsibility for managing the community pastures, most of the rangelands are in deterioration conditions. The rangelands could be more productive by their judicious utilization through proper management.

6.1 Range improvements:
Till now only 0.5 % of the total grazing lands of the high altitude districts have been improved [20; 21] 2[Pande, 1994; Pande 1997). The regular pasture improvement programmes should be continued to cover much more areas of indigenous rangelands.

6.1.1 Incorporation of legume into the existing sward:
Legume components in the natural rangelands of Nepal are negligible. Incorporation of the legume such as clover in the natural rangelands, not only increase the productivity and the quality of the pastures by supplying more DM and improving the nutritional quality but also improves the soil fertility level through fixing atmospheric nitrogen. Archer reported that by broadcasting white clover into the natural grazing areas of Himalayan region DM production increased by three folds compared to the existing productivity level [6] Archer 1990.
6.1.2 Improvement of Physical Facilities:
Most of the rangelands are difficult and inaccessible due to the lack of proper trails, bridges. The mule trails and bridges on river, rivulet should be constructed. Drinking water tank should be erected to facilitate the drinking water to the livestock.

6.1.2.1 Drinking water facilities:
The source of water for drinking to the grazing herds is only streams or lakes in Nepal. There are no artificial facilities provided for the stocks especially at high altitude regions of Nepal. Most of these resources are located far from the grazing grounds. Most of the vegetation near the watering source is severely grazed and degraded. An optimum distribution of the watering points over the rangelands helps in proper utilization of vegetation. Under the Northern Belt Pasture Development Programme over 41 drinking water facilities were constructed during the project period.

6.1.2.2 Provision of Mule trails and Bridges:
The rangelands should be easily accessible by the grazing stock. There should be proper trails for easy access and bridges to cross the river and rivulets. Most of the rangelands are located at high altitude regions, which are inaccessible due to the lack of trail and bridges to cross the river/rivulets. It is estimated that over 40 percent of the rangelands of high altitude regions are inaccessible. Under the Northern Belt Pasture Development Program over 39 mule trails have been constructed during the project periods.

6.1.2.3 Clearing of undesirable bushes:
The removal of undesirable and non-palatable species from rangelands is the most important step towards range improvements. Most of the rangelands are fully covered with undesirable species such as Eupatorium spp. Eradication of such bushes and weeds provides a chance for the desirable species to flourish and utilize the available nutrients and moisture. The bush free rangelands provided five times more fodder compared to the bushy rangelands. If the area is located on a slope the bushes and the shrubs should not be exposed at once. Otherwise the topsoil will be washed away due to increased run off. The undesirable shrubs of the sloppy areas should be removed in strip gradually. In the steppe region such as Mustang the native bushes should be protected as much as possible. They are the major source for moisture conservation in this arid zone. Basnyat recommended that such bushes should be protected and the improved pasture seed should be sown inside the bushes [13] Basnyat (1988).

6.1.3 Opening new Rangelands/Use of unutilised community pasture areas:
Most of the accessible grazing areas at high altitude region are over exploited and most of the palatable species are detriment. The dominant species are unpalatable grasses and weeds. Approximately 42 % of the grazing areas are still unutilised, due to steepness and unavailability of drinking water. There is an immediate need to open these pasturelands.

6.1.4 Use of Fertilization:
Application of fertilizer in the existing pastures is the effective and quick means to improve the productivity and the vegetational composition of the natural rangelands. But in the Nepalese contest to use fertilizer especially in pastures will be highly costly and uneconomical. Most of the rangelands of Nepal are low in Nitrogen fertilizer. By the use of Nitrogen fertilizer the productivity of the grasses species could be tripled. Grasses are more responsive to fertilizer application compared to the legumes or forbs. For legume species inoculation and the use of Phosphatic fertilizer is recommended. However, the compost and the dung’s should be used to increase the productivity of the pastures. There is a lack of systematic study to evaluate the increased productivity of the native pastures by the use of fertilizers in the natural conditions. However, the trial conducted in the cultivated condition using exotic as well as native species revealed the good response of fertilizer to the production of the fodder. Pandey et al (1990) found that by the use of FYM @ 8 mt/ha as a basal dose to Rye grass and Cocksfoot cultivars at Jiri condition the fodder yield was increased by 20 % compared to the non fertilized conditions. Similarly, tiller density and the plant height were also increased due to manuring [19] Pandey et al (1990) (Table 10.).

Table 10: Effects of FYM on DM production and tiller density
Description Treatment Ruanui (1) Khumal (1)* Wana (2)* Curie (2)*
DM yield (mt/ha) FYM, 8mt/ha 12.5 7.4 6.5 3.6
FYM, 0 10.1 6.5 5.9 2.6
Plant Den city tiller/sq m FYM, 8mt/ha 4512 1632 2608 1632
FYM, 0 4192 1360 2000 1056
Plant height(cm) FYM, 8mt/ha 26.5 28.9 15.8 14.1
FYM, 0 21.9 27.9 11.9 10.5
Note: 1= Cultivars of Lolium perenne; 2= Cultivars of Dactylis glomerata
Source: Adapted from [19] Pandey et al (1990)

6.1.5 Use of Irrigation:
Moisture is the major limiting factor for the better establishment as well as the performance of the natural vegetation especially of the herbaceous species. Irrigation of the rangelands could improve the productivity. The DM production of the Medicago falcata in the irrigated orchard in Mustang districts was found 2494 kg DM/ha compared to 93 kg DM/ha in the open rain-fed grazing lands at the altitude of 3610 m [14] (Kandel et al. (1988).

6.2 Adoption of proper grazing management:
Livestock is the core factor to the rangeland management. The major cause of poor conditions of pastures is due to overstocked livestock and its husbandry system. There is a lack of proper grazing management practices adopted by the farmers and/or at government level. Most of the newly established pastures are over grazed and are in deteriorating conditions. Most of the palatable species fail to bear the seeds and ultimately eliminated from the grazing lands. Following practices should be used for proper grazing management:

6.2.1 Stall feeding:
Stall feeding should be encouraged. The traditionally practised “cut and carry" method should be extensively carried out for the better use of fodder. This would also allow the opportunity to the plants to regenerate and therefore permits continued sustained production. Stall feeding practices control the overgrazing of natural feed resources as well as it increases the collection of dung’s and urine which ultimately improves the soil fertility status of soil. However, in Nepalese conditions where feed deficits is a major problem, the stall fed animals may not get the adequate feed and suffers more with mal nutrition and starvation compared in scavenger grazing and can pick up anything edible.

6.2.2 Closing of the rangelands from the grazing animals:
Due to the continuous grazing of the natural pastures not only lowered the productivity but also caused the lower plant density per unit of lands. Closing the rangeland for grazing animals could provide the opportunity for natural seeding and propagation. However, it requires long period. The practice is quite useful and productive however, it could not be implemented under Northern Belt Pasture Development Programme (NBPDP) due to the lack of people's participation. By providing resting or closing of the natural grazing areas through fencing the relative plant density and the productivity of the pastures increased significantly. For example in the Ghami Village Alt 3740 m the biomass production in the open grazing lands was 76.8 kg DM/ha whereas DM production within the fenced area was 158.0 kg/ha. The major plant species were Pennisetum, Chrysopogon, Caragana spp and others ([14] Kandel et al. 1988). Similarly, Singh et al. reported that within the three months period of time in Jumla areas alt 2800 masl the total number of plant count was increased by 65 % in the open grazing lands. The total number of plant was 1291 in the open area where as in the caged conditions the total plant count was 1976 [11] (Singh et al, 1990) . Similarly the green matter yield was increased by 76 percent (Table 11).

Table 11: Plant species, plant # and GM yield in caged and uncaged conditions
Description Caged Uncaged
Total plant species 32 24
Total number of plant 1976 1291
Green matter yield (mt/ha) 4.9 3.7
Source: 11] (Singh et al, 1990)

Grazing or browsing by livestock directly effects on species composition and productivity of the grassland vegetation. Livestock are selective grazier; exhibit preferences for different types of plants for their food [24; 25] (Pande, 1990; 1991). Some species are very palatable and selectively grazed out such as pasture legumes. When the grazing pressure is increased or there is a lack of good pasture on the sites, livestock graze on less palatable species. At the higher grazing pressure, the plants are heavily defoliated which could be detrimental to the plant survival. Most of the rangelands available in Nepal are under heavy grazing pressure, and are over grazed, deteriorated conditions and are dominated with unwanted species and weeds. Closing of the rangelands to preserve the plant diversity as well as the productivity is the effective means [27] Pariyar, 1990. Study conducted at Jumla revealed that the number of plant species and plant cover as well as biomass production was higher at the closed site compared to the open site. Similarly when the rangeland was closed for a long period resulted in the increase in number of plant species and fodder yield [26] Morrison, 1991. (Table 12).

Table 12: Effect of Long Term Closure on Plant species and Fodder Yield
Description No. of Plant Species Fodder Yield (mt DM/ha)
Open Grasslands 13 0.97
Two years closure 22 3.83
Five years closure 26 4.43
Long term closure 38 5.61
Source: Adapted from [26] Morrison, 1991.

Due to browsing most of the new seedling of plant and shrubs may inhibit growth and die. Livestock also effects on environment degradation and loss of bio diversity through trampling on ground and camping.

7.0 Major challenges on rangeland development/management:
 Ownership/Users’ right on rangelands? Traditionally the rangelands were/have been under the control of some “elites” and were/have been collecting grazing fees “Kharchauri” from the herders. Since the emergence of the community forestry concept and the formation of FUGs in most of the VDCs the “Users Right” has been transferred to the FUGs, that created some conflict/confusion e.g. in Bagam/Chhagam ([28] Pande, 2005); [29] Miller, D.J. 1993
 Basic information on rangelands? The basic information on the rangelands is virtually, nil e.g. altitudes, aspects, area, pasture composition, biomass production, seasonality of growth and utilisation). Moreover, traditionally the community managed rangelands are recognised by its traditional names and nominal signs e.g. river, hills, lake etc rather than a physical boundary, overlap of the area, boundaries is quite common, which may cause conflict between the users as well as create management problems
 Responsibility of the rangelands management? Most of rangelands are over utilised due to continuous grazing and are in deteriorating conditions. The pasturelands are dominated with unwanted weeds and poisonous bushes. It is estimated that the accessible pasturelands are considered to produce only 25 per cent of its potential.
 Deteriorating conditions of associated forests: Oak tree foliage is sole diet for the livestock especially during winter season. Most of the oak trees are heavily lopped out and ceased the ability of reproduction. To promote regeneration of oak trees through protection of mother plants has initiated but its impact and its success is not apparent. Similarly, extensive rhododendron forest especially above 3,000 m altitude has been burned annually to expand the pasturelands and to induce faster growth of pastures, which threatens the existing of dwarf rhododendron forest as well as existing of flora and fauna.
 Infrastructural facilities: In most of the community pasturelands the infrastructure facilities e.g. drinking water, sheds for herders and young animals, conditions of trail, condition of bridges in river/rivulets is very poor. Moreover, every year herder cuts young trees to renovate their sheds as well as for burning/cooking their meals, which deteriorates the forest resources.
 Remoteness of the Rangelands area: The Himalayan regions (above 2,000 masl) where the extensive rangelands are found, are characterized by higher degradation of natural resources, low agricultural productivity, poverty driven migration, limited education, poor health care facilities and less income generation opportunities. These areas are lagged behind in terms of accessibility, available resources, infrastructures & physical facilities.
 Provision/use of grazing fees: Traditionally the community pasturelands were/have been under the control of some “elites” and were/have been collecting “grazing fees” locally called “Kharchauri” from the herders. Since the emergence of the community forestry (CF) concept and the formation of Forest Users Group (FUG) in most of the Village Development Committees the “Users Right” has been transferred to the FUGs that created some conflict/confusion.
 Is it possible to manipulate/extend pasture utilisation period? : Most of rangelands above 3,000 masl are utilised by the migratory herds during summer (June to August) only though the stay could be stretched up to September until the snow fall commence. Rest of the period the herds remain in lower/winter pastures grazing on oak forest at around 2,000 m altitude. Length of the stay of the herds directly correlated with utilisation pattern; longer the stay of herds in lower/winter pastures maximal the rate of utilisation/deterioration of the oak forest. Interventions need to explore the ways to prolong the stay/ utilisation period of upper/high altitude pastures aiming to minimise the additional pressure in winter pasture/oak forest?
 Co-relation between stocking rate vs carrying capacity? The number of livestock tends to more compare to its carrying capacity. Reduction in herd size by increasing the productivity of individual animal is a common solution proposed by the so-called planner (?) (As the livestock is a status symbol in rural society and seems continued in near future? So, whether try to reduce the number of herd size or should try to improve the forage supply situation to match the demand in a sustainable manner?)
 Livestock types and numbers: The major livestock in these areas are cattle, Yak, Chauri, sheep, goats and other animals. The livestock are raised under migratory systems. The number of livestock is beyond the carrying capacity of rangelands. On the other hand types of livestock are also disproportionate e.g. the number of goat population far more than sheep and the goats are considered as a destroyer of the vegetation. Most of the herders’ keep only breeding male (to minimise cost of rearing of the stud and avoid unnecessary competition/fighting between the males). Moreover, the breeding male selected from the same progeny of the same parental stock in all types of animals except Yaks. Consequently, the genetic potentiality of the herds deteriorates and the performance of the animals in terms of milk and growth decreases/decreasing.
 Reasonable herd size: Most of the herders are reluctant to reduce the herd size; herders are concerned more about quantity rather then quality; keeping large herd reduces the risk of failure in livestock rearing business; as the incidence of diseases and casualty of animals is high and animals are low producing, keeping large herds minimise the risk. The average size of “Goth” (Herd) in migratory systems ranges from 200-300 heads of animals only comprising 4-6 farmers/households; larger herds are unmanageable and incidence during transferring of “Goth” and grazing could be fatal: as the mule trails are too narrow for travelling the larger herds). So, there is restriction also to from the management point.
 Fate of the Chauri calves/cruelty of animals: Most of new born Chauri calves are forced to death (starved and/or over feeding of whey) - within first week of their age, mainly to save the milk yield as well as the hybrid-born calves are less important in terms of milk production .
 Differed grazing behaviours of animals: During the migratory process the sheep/goats herds first moves toward alpine pastures earlier than Chauri. The grazing behaviour of these animals varies with each other and ability to utilise the available feed resources also differ among them. For example, goats prefer browsing than grazing compared to either sheep or cattle, which could affect the pasture management.
 Conventional breeding practices/one stud services: Most of the herders’ keep only breeding male (to minimise cost of rearing of the stud and avoid unnecessary competition/fighting between the males). Moreover, the breeding male selected from the same progeny of the same parental stock in all types of animals except Yaks. Consequently, the genetic potentiality of the herds deteriorates and the performance of the animals in terms of milk and growth decreases/decreasing.
 Community Awareness: Awareness towards the improved forage cultivation practices has been created need to be expended in wider scale to mitigate the shortage feeds and fodder and to save the oak forest.
 Support Services: Veterinary, credit services: Most of community people have less access to veterinary services, credit facilities, cold storage/chilling centres etc.
 Extension/expansion of forage cultivation practices: Awareness towards the improved forage cultivation practices have been created, which needs to be expended in wider scale to mitigate the shortage feeds and fodder and to save the oak forest.
 Training and education: The training peoples either farmers or staff lack proper training in pasture production and livestock management. iv) Technical staff: There is a shortage of technical staff in the field of pasture and fodder development. Whatever the staff are available they are reluctant to serve in remote district.
 Product Diversification: So far, Chauri are mainly used for milk and sheep/goats for meat but most of the farmer’s milch sheep and goats and consume locally and/or convert into curd or ghee (generally not for sale and no market outside). Most of the unwanted species/ weeds for herders could have economic value e.g. Androsace species.
 Pollution/environmental degradations: In Himalayan regions scattered piece of bottles, plastic bags and others are quite common.
 Role and status of women and school going kids involved in livestock farming: Most of the work related to milching, “Chhurpi” making are done by women (interesting, milking Chauri is the prime job of women only). Most of the time young girls/women compelled to live alone in an isolated shed with the animals, and school going kids also seen frequently with chauri herds
 Outward migration: Most of the working youth are abandoning the homestead, sometimes with whole family members either in Kathmandu and/or India/Overseas to explore the alternative opportunities for more income.
 Invasion of rangelands: Rangelands are national property utilized by community people since time immemorial. There is a lack of responsibility towards protection and conservation especially at community level. Occupation and invasion of rangelands for personal use has been increasing recently. The high altitude rangelands around the vicinity of the villages are gradually converted into the orchard and/or crop-fields. It was estimated that about 10 % of the community lands are annually used for this purpose in Jumla, Dolpa and Jajarkot districts. Some of the natural pasturelands and other common lands are invaded by some of the “elites” for the personal use; every body realise it but no body dares to oppose/raise voice against it?
 People's participation: Peoples are reluctant to invest time and money for improvement of government/ community rangelands even for their own use.
 Research and extension: There is a lack of research work on native pasture production and management system especially in Northern belt region. Similarly, diversified use of unwanted species/weeds of community pasturelands as most of the unwanted species/ weeds for herders could have economic value e.g. Androsace species.
 Whether to conserve the native pasture species and/or replace by exotic? The native pasture species though hardy in nature but are lower in terms of DM yield, feed value and persists for shorter period compared to the exotic species. One the other hand, introduction of exotic species could be a threat to the bio-diversity conservation (e.g. white clover found all over the native pasturelands up to 3000m). Moreover, testing of exotic genetic materials has been initiated into the native pasturelands at different zone
 Government rules and regulations: Government rules regulations of the ownership and renovation/management of natural pasturelands are conflicting/ confusing between and within the organisations e.g. National Parks/ Wildlife Reserves in Buffer Zone.
 High cost of development: Improvements of rangelands are expensive and time-consuming programme. Due to lack of adequate budget and resources pasture improvement activities are low prioritised under GON programme.
 Recycling of manures: The heaps of manures found close to the sheds in the alpine pasturelands and most of its nutrients go unutilised
 Existence of oak forest threatened: Oak foliage is sole diet for the livestock especially during winter season. Most of the oak trees are heavily lopped out and ceased the ability of reproduction. To promote regeneration of oak trees through protection of mother plants has initiated but its impact and its success is not apparent. Similarly, extensive rhododendron forest especially above 3,000 m altitude has been burned annually to expand the pasturelands and to induce faster growth of pastures, which threatens the existing of dwarf rhododendron forest as well as existing of flora and fauna.
 Feed/nutritive value of forage: The information on feed value of native pastures and browse foliage is lacking. Some of the plants considered to contain anti-nutritional factors e.g. presence of tannins in oak foliage
 Traditional vs. improved livestock management practices: The traditional migratory system of livestock farming is becoming less attractive due to the shortage of feeds/fodder, high cost of production, hardship, lack of labour force etc. The profit margin or return of the investments especially in case of Chauri production is very low. The potential Chauri farmers are lured towards the money lending business rather than Chauris farming by them. To make the Chauri farming occupation more attractive? Is a challenge? Some of the dairy farmers of have developed a unique strategy to escape from the dry buffaloes (non-lactating stage), they sale the dry animal (to escape from the cost to rearing until the next parturition), and purchase new lactating buffalo to continue their dairy business as most of the dry buffaloes go to meat market and thus shortage of dairy buffaloes remains chronic problem (e.g. a case seen in Kabhrepalanchok district).
 Supply/production of planting materials (seeds, saplings etc): Promotion of on-farm forage production and the renovation of the native pasturelands requires/demand a huge quantity of planting materials, but the domestic production is limited

8. Conclusion/Summary:
The livelihood of the high Himalayan people depends of livestock farming. The acute shortage of pasturing are compelling the local especially Sherpa people to abandon the traditional systems of agriculture and forced to engage on alternative options of livelihoods such as tourism and work as a seasonal porter and/or migrate to other countries such as India and/or overseas. The deteriorating situations of the rangelands have created depletion of environment conservation, loss of biodiversity, threat to the rear wildlife and affect on major watershed areas of the southern Asia. The closure of Tibetan pasturelands for Nepalese herds and termination of government implemented northern belt pastureland improvement programmes have worsen the situation. Immediate attention is needed to improve the pasture production, productivity and conservation of native animals in the Himalayan regions of Nepal with strong people's participation.

9. References:
 [1] LRMP: Land Resource Mapping Project (main Report), Land Resource Mapping Project, HMG/ Nepal, 1986.
 [2] Forestry Master Plan for the Forestry Sector, Nepal, Ministry of Forest and soil Conservation, HMG/Nepal, 1989;
 [3] MFSC, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, 2006.
 [4] Livestock Master Plan : Livestock Master Plan. HMG/N; ADB/ANZDEC/APROSC. Kathmandu, 1993.
 [5] Alirol, Ph. 1979. Transhuming Animal husbandry system in the Kalinchowk Region (Central Nepal) , Swiss Association of Technical Assistance, Kathmandu.
 [6] Archer, A.C. Himalayan pasture and fodder Research Network, Consultant Report, RAS/79/121/FAO., 1987.
 [7] Archer, A.C. Department of Livestock services Pasture and Fodder Development in the High Altitude Zone Project Nepal (Nep /85/007). Project Findings and recommendations, FAO Rome., 1990 .
 [8] FAO, Pasture and Fodder Development in High Altitude Zone, Nepal Terminal Report. Nepal, 1990.
 [9] Grela, A. and Sharma, K.P. 1991. Observation of Grassland Productivity in Khumbu, Nepal. Proceedings of the Regional Workshop of the Himalayan Pasture and Fodder Research Network, Regional Seminar, 13-19 November, Palampur, India.
 [10] Dhaubhadel, T.S., Tiwari, B.N. 1992. Botanical Composition of High Himalayan Pasture and the Evaluation of its nutritive value at Rohum alpine pasture, Kaski. Working Paper No. 92/4. Lumle Regional Agricultural Centre, Pokhara.
 [11] Singh, S.B.; Joshi, N.P.; Tiwari, K.R.; Gurung, N.K and Dongol,D.R. 1990. Evaluation of native and exotic pasture species at Gothichaur sheep farm, Jumla. Paper presented at the Regional Seminar on High Altitude Pasture Research in the Himalayan Range, March 20-24, 1990 Kathmandu.
 [12] Department of Medicinal Plants. 1976. Flora of Langtang & Cross Vegetation Survey (Central Zone). HMG, Department of Medicinal Plants, Thapathali, Kathmandu.
 [13] Basnyat, N.B. 1988. Report on pasture and rangeland resiources in upper Mustang. Consultant's Report. NEP/85/007.FAO/ UNDP Project, Pasture and Fodder DEvelopment in the High Altitude Zone, Nepal.
 [14] Kandel, R.N; Adhikary, J.R; Aryal, K.P; Ghimire, K.B. 1988. Survey of Mustang. High Altitude Pasture Survey Group, Khumaltar, Nepal.
 [15] Shrestha, N.P.; Neopane, S.P.; Gurung, H.B.; Pakhrin, B. and Shrestha, J. 1990. Observation on the adaptibility and seed production of forage legumes at Pakhribas agricultural Centre. PAC Technical paper No. 126. Pakhribas Agricultural Centre, Kathmandu.
 [16] FAO, Pasture and Fodder Development at High Altitude Zone, Terminal Report, FAO, Rome, 1990.
 [17] Wiart, J. 1983. Ecosysteme villageois traditionnel en Himalaya nepalais. La production ferestiere suffitelle aux besoins de la population? University Grenoble I, pp 267.
 18] Paudyal, D; Bauer, J.J. 1988.A survey of wildlife, grasslands and Pastoral Systems of the Upper Hinku and Hongu Valleys – Nepal. DNPW Co. Nep 85/011.
 [19] Panday, S.B., grela. A., raut,Y. and Joshi, N.D. 1990. Performance of different temperate grass and legume species. II. Comperative growth performance of different cultivars of red and white clover under three fertilizer treatments. Nep. J. Anim. Sci. Vol. 7 53-60.
 [20] Pande, R.S.: Livestock Feeds and Grassland Development in Nepal. National Forage and Grassland Research Centre, Kathmandu, Nepal, 1994.
 [21] Pande, R.S.: Fodder and pasture development in Nepal. Udaya Research and Development Services (P) Ltd, Kathmandu, Nepal, 1997.
 [22] CBS, Statistical Pocket Book Nepal, 2007. Central Bureau of Statistics, Government of Nepal, 2007.
 [23] Rajbhandary, HB and Shah SG, Trends Projection of Livestock Production the Hills of Nepal. Seminar on Nepal Experience in Hill Agriculture Development, HMG, Nepal 1981.
 [24] Pande, R.S. 1990: Feed value of tagasaste (Chamaecytisus palmensis) for goats and preferential browsing activities by goats and sheep in multi species shrub/pasture conditions. M.AgrSc, Thesis, Massey University, New Zealand.
 [25] Pande, R.S. 1991: Role of browse shrub/trees as animal feed in Nepal. Proceedings of the First National Animal Science Convention, Jan 14-15, 1991, Kathmandu.
 [26] Morrison, J. 1991. Himalayan Pasture and Fodder Research Network Project: Projects Findngs and Recommendations, .RAS 79/121, FAO, Rome.
 [27] Pariyar, D. 1990. Fodder and pasture seed requirement and supply arrangements. Proceedings of Second National Seed Seminar, March 20-22, 1990, Kathmandu. Ministry of Agriculture, National Seed Board, Kathmandu.
 [28] Pande, RS: “Pro-poor Community Forage Production Programme in the Nepal Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihoods Project, Nepal” Proceedings of the Workshop on Fodder Oats, Fodder Technology Packages and Small Farm Income Generation. TCP/NEP/2901-Capacity Building for Fodder Oat Technologies in Nepal and sixth meeting of the Temperate Asia Pasture and Fodder Network, FAO 8-11 March 2005.
 [29] Miller, D.J. 1993. Grazing lands in the Nepal Himalaya: present and Potential Economic Returns to Range livestock Production in High Elevation Areas. Draft Final Report, USAID, Kathmandu.
10. Acknowledgement:
The author would like to acknowledge Dr David hemming (TL, Biotech), CABI organisation for his continual encouragement as well as valuable comments to prepare this review in the present form.


20. Preference of goats and sheep for browse species under field conditions

20. Preference of goats and sheep for browse species under field conditions
R. S. Pande* P. D. Kemp† J. Hodgson

(Published in: New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 2002, Vol. 45: 97–102
0028–8233/02/4502–0097 $7.00/0 © The Royal Society of New Zealand 2002 New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research www.informaworld.com/smpp/.../title~db=all~content=g919964384)

Abstract:
The preference of goats and sheep for browse species in mixed browse and pasture conditions in New Zealand was determined using 6 goats and 6 sheep observed for 2-h periods on 6 occasions between February and December. The goats and sheep were given free access to established nurseries. The 2 nurseries contained 6 types of leguminous shrubs, 3 non-leguminous shrub species, and 2 erect grass species, growing in rows with a grass-dominant temperate pasture. Preference was determined with an index that took into account the proportion of browsing observations and the relative abundance of each browse species. Goats browsed in 45% and sheep in 12% of the observations. The three most preferred species for goats and sheep were the same, but the order of preference differed. The overlap coefficient for all browse species (where 0 = no overlap and 1 = identical diets) ranged from 0.47 in winter to 0.79 in summer. The results are contrasted with those from a cafeteria-style indoor experiment that used the same browse and animal species.

Keywords grazing ecology; goats; sheep; browsing; preference; diet selection; browse species

INTRODUCTION
Grazing animals continuously discriminate between vegetation types and plant parts (Hodgson 1986). Such activity is usually greater under range conditions and maximal when animals are browsing (Van Soest 1982). Goats are regarded as more efficient users of browse than sheep (Van Soest 1982; Devendra & Burns 1983), but scant information is available on the preference of goats and sheep for the browse species commonly available in New Zealand. Lambert et al. (1989a) compared the preference of goats and sheep for a range of browse species in a cafeteria-style indoor experiment. The multi-species nurseries used to provide the browse material in the experiment by Lambert et al. (1989a) were used in the field experiment reported here, which was designed to study the preference for browse species and the browsing activity of goats and sheep on field sites with multiple browse and pasture species available.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Location:
The experiment was carried out at the Ballantrae Hill Research Station, AgResearch Grasslands, (175°50E, 40°18S, 150 m a.s.l.), 20 km from Palmerston North, New Zealand. Observations took place at intervals from February 1989 to December 1989 inclusive.

Plant species
There were two established nurseries each containing 10 different browse species, with two forms of gorse (Table 1). Short spine gorse is an ecotype with shorter spines and a denser bush than typically found on gorse. The browse species were 3–4 years of age and grown in hedges consisting of 5–8 plants per hedge. The hedges were usually 5 m long and were between 0.4 and 1.7 m high. At each nursery, hedges of short spine gorse, black locust, and ceanothus appeared only once and hedges of †Author for correspondence. the other eight browse species were replicated three times.


Table 1 Browse species in the nurseries.
Common name Scientific name
Legumes
Tagasaste
Chamaecytisus palmensis (Christ) Bisby et K.Nicholls
Broom Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link.
Tree medic Medicago arborea L.
Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia L.

Gorse Ulex europaeus L.
Short spine gorse Ulex europaeus L.
Non-legumes
Tauhinu Ozothamnus leptophyllus (G.Forst.) Breitw. et J.M.Ward
Ceanothus Ceanothus griseus (Trel.) McMinn
Manuka Leptospermum scoparium J.R. et G.Forst.
Erect grasses
Toetoe Cortaderia fulvida (Buchanan) Zotov
Pampas Cortaderia selloana (Schult. et Schult.f.) Asch. et Graebn.

Main pasture species growing underneath the browse species were browntop (Agrostis capillaris), crested dogstail (Cynosurus cristatus), cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), and white clover (Trifolium repens).

Animals
Six dry, angora-cross female goats and 6 dry, pure Romney female sheep were used. The animals were 17 months of age at the start of the experiment, and the mean body weight was 18.2 ± 0.4 kg and 43.5 ± 1.1 kg for goats and sheep, respectively. The animals were kept overnight in an adjacent shearing shed prior to each observation period, and provided with water but no feed, to encourage feeding during the observation period. The previous grazing experiences of the animals were on hill pastures.

Table 2 Animal observation and nursery schedule.
Observation date (1989) Nursery 1 Nursery 2 Season
22 Feb sheep goats summer
23 Mar goats sheep autumn
27 Apr sheep goats autumn
23 May sheep goats winter
22 Jun goats sheep winter
24 Nov goats sheep summer


Observations
The goats and sheep were allowed free choice of all plant species in their allocated nursery. Each observation period was 2 h (10.00–12.00 h) starting from release of the animals into the nurseries.Observation dates were scheduled to cover summer, autumn, and winter seasons, and were arranged in a sequence of approximately 4-week intervals between 22 February and 22 June 1989, with a final observation on 24 November 1989. The animal species were alternated between nurseries (Table 2).
The preferences of the goats and sheep for browse species were quantified on the basis of the animal activities; browsing, grazing, and idling. The interval sampling technique was used to record animal activities at 2-minute intervals (Hodgson 1982). A shearing shed about 200 m from the nurseries was used as the observation post so as to minimise the influence of the observer on animal activities (Jamieson & Hodgson 1979). Distribution of the browsing activities in relation to the arrangement of the browse species in each nursery and the defoliation of plant parts are described in detail in Pande (1990).
The preference of goats and sheep for the individual browse species was adjusted for both the difference in the proportion of time spent browsing by goats and sheep, and the different abundance of the browse species. These adjustments were made by calculating, for each nursery, the proportion of browsing observations (PBO) each animal species spent browsing each browse species, and by calculating the relative abundance value (RAV) for each browse species. The RAV for each replicate of each browse species was calculated from the length, width, height, and density score of the plants in each hedge (Whittaker 1975). Density of the foliage of the browse plants was ranked visually from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest).

The PBO and RAV were used to calculate the browsing preference index (BPI) given below (see Pande 1990).

BPI = (PBOi/ RAVi/ ni=1 (PBOi/ RAVi )

An overlap coefficient (C) using the simplified Morisita Index (Horn 1966) was used to measure the overlap for preferred browse species between sheep and goats. The Cranges from 0 (no overlap) to 1 (identical diets).

C=2ni-1 Xi Yi/ni=1Xi +ni=1 Yi

where:
Xi = PBO for animal species X, for browse species i
Yi = PBO for animal species Y, for browse species i.
The effect of animal species, browse species, nursery, and season and their interactions on RAV, PBO, and BPI were analysed with the SAS General Linear Model (SAS 1988).

RESULTS
Goats and sheep were browsing during 45 and 12% of observations, respectively (Table 3). Conversely, sheep grazed more often than goats (Table 3). Both animal species spent a similar time idling, but this was in 8% or less of all observations (Table 3). There was no significant effect of season on the observations of animal activities.

Table 3 The percentage of observations of animal activities in the categories of browsing, grazing, and idling, expressed as means for the six observation periods. NS, not significant; *, P < 0.05 for within row mean comparison
Animal activities Goats Sheep
%
Browsing 44.7 11.6*
Grazing 48.6 80.5
Idling 6.7 8.0 NS
SEM = ±1.3

Proportional browsing observations (PBO)
There was a significant effect of browse species on PBO, and the animal species by browse species interaction was also significant (P < 0.001; Pande 1990). The other main effects and interactions were not significant. Goats were observed to browse tree medic most often, whereas sheep most often browsed black locust (Table 4). Tree medic, black locust, tagasaste, and ceanothus were often browsed by both goats and sheep, whereas tauhinu, toetoe, and pampas were rarely browsed by either animal species (Table 4). Short spine gorse and gorse were regularly browsed by goats but more rarely by sheep (Table 4).

Table 4 The proportion of browsing observations (PBO), the relative abundance value (RAV), and the browsing preference index (BPI) for each browse species for goats and sheep over 1 year.
Species Goat Sheep
PBO RAV BPI PBO RAV BPI
Tree medic 0.268 0.001 0.837 0.215 0.001 0.790
Short spine gorse 0.249 0.003 0.154 0.056 0.002 0.053
Black locust 0.178 0.007 0.066 0.398 0.013 0.149
Tagasaste 0.151 0.076 0.007 0.121 0.072 0.007
Ceanothus 0.092 0.042 0.006 0.125 0.044 0.007
Broom 0.048 0.059 0.003 0.093 0.058 0.014
Gorse 0.143 0.252 0.001 0.041 0257 0.002
Manuka 0.012 0.089 0.001 0.009 0.085 0.001
Tauhinu 0.002 0.111 0.000 0.013 0.107 0.001
Toetoe 0.006 0.176 0.000 0.018 0.175 0.001
Pampas 0.002 0.182 0.000 0.000 0.184 0.000
SEM 0.008 0.031 0.024 0.008 0.031 0.024

Relative abundance value (RAV)
The RAV of the browse species differed significantly (P < 0.0001). The RAV was unaffected by season, nursery, or animal species. The only significant interaction effect was nursery by browse species (P < 0.001), reflecting a difference in the number and hedge size of some browse species between nurseries (Pande 1990). The four most abundant browse species in terms of RAV were gorse, pampas, toetoe, and tauhinu, whereas tree medic, short spine gorse, and black locust were the least abundant (Table 4).

Browsing preference index (PBI)
The main effect of browse species on BPI was significant (P < 0.001), but the main effects of animal species, season, and nursery were not significant (Pande 1990). The nursery by browse species and the animal species by nursery by browse species interactions were significant (P < 0.001; Pande 1990). For both goats and sheep the greatest browsing preference, based on BPI, was for tree medic. Goats preferred short spine gorse and then black locust after tree medic, whereas sheep preferred black locust and then short spine gorse (Table 4). The two animal species were similar in their preference for the other browse species (Table 4).
The BPI gave different results for the preference of goats and sheep for some browse species than the PBO due to the differences in abundance as measured by RAV (Table 4). In particular, the PBO ranked gorse as the fifth most preferred browse species by goats, yet due to its high RAV gorse was ranked seventh using the BPI (Table 4). Similarly, black locust was the highest ranked browse species for sheep using the PBO but was ranked third using the BPI (Table 4).
Overlap coefficient (C)
The overlap coefficients for the preferred browse species by goats and sheep were 0.79 (November) and 0.71 (February) in summer, 0.62 (March) and 0.64 (April) in autumn, and 0.47 (May) and 0.58 (June) in winter, respectively. Hence, the greatest overlap between goats and sheep was in summer and the least in winter.
DISCUSSION
The results supported the view that goats are intermediate browsers and sheep are intermediate grazers (Van Soest 1982). Nevertheless, when only the browsing activity of the goats and sheep was considered there was a high degree of overlap on the preferred browse species. Both animal species showed the greatest preference for tree medic, short spine gorse, and black locust according to the BPI. Although the overlap coefficient (C) for goats and sheep was high, the degree of overlap was seasonally dependent. The availability of species such as black locust was lower in winter, and sheep were observed to browse ceanothus more in winter which suggests that the palatability of at least this species was seasonal.
The use of the PBI enabled the preference of goats and sheep for the individual browse species to be ranked independently of the differences in the abundance of the browse species. Although the most preferred species were the least abundant this appeared to be a coincidental result. The BPI, compared with using the proportion of PBO, gave a different preference ranking to some browse species, but the general trend was similar for both indices. The adjustment for the abundance of a browse species (RAV) affected the preference ranking of species like gorse and black locust, but largely demonstrated that tree medic, despite its low abundance, was the most preferred species. The BPI would appear to be a useful method for adjusting animal preference observations made on mixtures of browse species of varying abundance.
The browse species could be readily placed into one of three preference groups of high, moderate, and low preference for both animal species, although the ranking of individual browse species showed some variation between goats and sheep. The high preference group was tree medic, short spine gorse, and black locust, the moderate group comprised tagasaste, ceanothus, and broom, and members of the poor group were gorse, manuka, tauhinu, toetoe, and pampas. This ranking relates well to the digestibility of the browse species, with the notable exception of short spine gorse (Lambert et al. 1989b), but corresponds more poorly, especially for sheep, with the rankings obtained from a cafeteria-style indoor experiment (Lambert et al. 1989a).
Lambert et al. (1989b) reported the in vivo digestibility of tree medic, tagasaste, and black locust as being in the range 76–81%; ceanothus and broom 71–73%; short spine gorse, tauhinu, and gorse 63–67%; and manuka, toetoe, and pampas 47–48%. The high preference for short spine gorse by both goats and sheep in our experiment Pande et al.—Preference of goats and sheep for browse species 101 suggested that digestibility was not the only factor affecting its palatability.
Many factors such as digestibility, nutrient content, smell, taste, and physical properties (e.g., hairs, thorns) influence the palatability of plant species, and animal preference is also affected by factors such as access to and the availability of plant material (Crawley 1983). No attempt was made in this experiment to directly determine the factors that influenced animal preference though some observations can be made. The high digestibility of the most preferred browse species would have provided positive post-ingestive consequences to the sheep and goats, thereby reinforcing the animals’ preference (Bryant et al. 1991).
Additionally, tree medic, black locust, and short spine gorse are all legumes with consequent reasonable levels of protein. At least some of the browse species contained potentially toxic secondary metabolites, with manuka known to contain alkaloid and phenolic compounds (Corbett & McDowell 1958), but specific defence chemicals have not been isolated. The differences in physical structure between the browse species would have affected access to young leaves, and species such as gorse are spiny on the mature stems.
The high preference for gorse observed by Lambert et al. (1989a), as opposed to the poor preference in our experiment, was probably the result of the chopping process used by Lambert et al. (1989a) which may have improved the palatability of gorse through, for example, a decrease in its spiny nature, and, perhaps, poor access to young shoots of gorse in our experiment despite the relative abundance of the plants. Thus, the comparison between our outdoor experiment and the indoor experiment of Lambert et al. (1989a), both based on the same browse nurseries, highlighted the need to examine as many of the factors involved in animal preference as possible before conclusions can be drawn on the relative ranking of plant species.
Lambert et al. (1989a) concluded that goats had a greater preference for short spine gorse, manuka, and ceanothus than sheep, and that sheep had a greater preference than goats for broom and pampas. In our experiment goats also had a higher preference for short spine gorse than sheep, whereas sheep had a greater preference for black locust than goats. There were no significant differences in the preference by goats and sheep for individual browse species outside the three most highly preferred species, tree medic, short spine gorse, and black locust, but some of the trends were similar to the results of Lambert et al. (1989a). For example, sheep tended to show a greater preference for broom than goats, and both sheep and goats exhibited a low preference for tauhinu, toetoe, and pampas (cf. Lambert et al. 1989a).
One explanation for the greater browse preference differences between goats and sheep reported by Lambert et al. (1989a), compared with those reported here, is that Lambert et al. (1989a) always imposed choices between pairs of feeds, whereas in the present experiment all 11 browse species and types were always available. In the outdoor experiment animals were observed to mainly browse the most preferred species, thereby making it difficult to collect sufficient data on the least preferred species to detect possible preference differences between goats and sheep for these browse species. Lacher et al. (1982) also reported that when preferred browse species were available, less preferred species were either rejected or rarely consumed regardless of their abundance. Whether browsed by goats or sheep, a mixture of the browse species examined would be difficult to maintain if it contained highly and poorly preferred browse species. Low preference browse species would seem unlikely to be browsed even if more abundant than the highly preferred species.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
R. S. Pande thanks Food and Agriculture Organisation and New Zealand Ministry of External Relations and Trade for financial support. The support of AgResearch in allowing the use of browse nurseries and experimental animals at Ballantrae Hill Station is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
• Bryant, J. P.; Provenza, F. D.; Pastor, J.; Reichardt, P. B.; Clausen, T. P.; du Toit, J. T. 1991: Interactions between woody plants and browsing mammals mediated by secondary metabolites. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 22: 431–446.
• Corbett, R. E.; McDowell, M. A. 1958: Extractives from the New Zealand Myrataceae: III. Journal of the Chemical Society 168: 3715– 3716.
• Crawley, M. J. 1983: Herbivory: the dynamics of animal plant interactions. Oxford, Blackwell Scientific.
• Devendra, C.; Burns, M. 1983: Goat production in the tropics. UK, CABI. Pp. 90–176. 102 New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 2002, Vol. 45
• Hodgson, J. 1982: Ingestive behaviour. In: Leaver, J. D. ed. Herbage intake handbook. UK, British Grassland Society. Pp. 113–138.
• Hodgson, J. 1986: Grazing behaviour and herbage intake. In: Frame, J. ed. Grazing. British Grassland Society Occasional Symposium 19: 51–65.
• Horn, H. S. 1966: Measurement of “overlap” in comparative ecological studies. The American Naturalist 100: 419–424.
• Jamieson, W. S.; Hodgson, J. 1979: The effects of daily herbage allowance and sward characteristics upon the ingestive behaviour and herbage intake of calves under strip-grazing management. Grass and Forage Science 34: 261–271.
• Lacher, T. E.; Willing, M. R.; Mares, M. A. 1982: Food preference as a function of resource abundance with multiple prey types: an experimental analysis of optimal foraging theory. The American Naturalist 120: 297–314.
• Lambert, M. G.; Jung, G. A.; Fletcher, R. H.; Budding, P. J.; Costall, D. A. 1989a: Forage shrubs in North Island hill country. 2. Sheep and goat preferences. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 32: 485–490.
• Lambert, M. G.; Jung, G. A.; Harpster, H. W.; Budding, P. J.; Wewala, G. S. 1989b: Forage shrubs in North Island hill country. 3. Forage digestibility. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 32: 491–497.
• Pande, R. S. 1990: Feed value of tagasaste (Chamaecytisus palmensis) for goats and preferential browsing activities by goats and sheep in multi-species shrub/pasture conditions. Unpublished MAgSc thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
• SAS 1988: SAS user’s guide. Cary, NC, SAS Institute.
• Van Soest, P. J. 1982: Nutrition ecology of the ruminants. Cornallis, UK, O & B Books.
• Whittaker, R. H. 1975: Communities and ecosystems. NY, MacMillan.


19. Pro-poor Community Forage Production Programme in the Nepal Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihoods Project, Nepal. Rameshwar Singh Pande (Published in : Proceedings of the Workshop on Fodder Oats , Fodder Technology Packages and Small Farm Income generation, Chapter XXIX, Kathmandu, Nepal, 8-11 March 2005 . TCP/NEP/2901-Capacity building for fodder oat technologies in Nepaland, sixth Meeting of the Temperate Asia Pasture and Fodder Network. www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/Proceedings/nepal2005/chapter29) SUMMARY The Community Forestry (CF) programme has been ongoing since 1978 and has proved useful and successful in giving communities access to forest resources and improving forest management.It has however, neglected non-timber forest resources, especially forage and has also had limited success in making resources available to the poorest and disadvantage groups. To increase equity in access to community forest the Nepal -Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihoods Project has initiated a Community Forage Programme focusing on landless poor, women and disadvantaged groups on a pilot basis, aiming to enhance fodder supply as well as stopping further degradation of forest resources. This paper describes the methodology of organising such work, socially and technically and reports on preliminary results of fodder production technques. Key words: Pro-poor, Dalit, Community forest, Forest user group, forage programme, Forage plants. BACKGROUND Community Forestry (CF) was devised in 1978 to improve the condition of forest and meet household needs of forest products. Poor households especially rural ones, depend on community resources to meet their daily needs in fodder, bedding, firewood and other).However, small land- holders or households with few on-farm activities have not been benefited as envisaged by the Community Forage programme (Richards et al 2003; Malla et al, 2003; Bhatta & Dhakal 2004; Singh 2004; Chhetri, 2004). Forest products are inequitably distributed among the poor within the community Forest User Groups (FUG) (Timsina 2002; Neupane 2003; Kandel & Subedi 2004; Kanel, Statz and Sharma 2004; Nurse et al 2004; Shrestha and Khadka, 2004). Even so, the significance of Community Forestry has been well proved in empowering users to manage forest resources for their own benefit (Kanel, 2004). Over time, the priority of Community Forestry has shifted from forest protection and management to poverty alleviation & livelihoods improvement (NACRMLP, 2003; LFP, 2003; Allison et al, 2004; Kanel and Niraula, 2004). Since the inception of Community Forestry, over 1010,740 ha of forest have been handed over to 13,300 FUGs, comprising over 1422,301 households (CFD, 2004). Most Community Forests are close to the human settlement and contribute significantly products: timber and firewood, their value (in FUG fund) is high, but the need for fodder by all strata of people is more important. In Community Forest management, priority has been given to timber and firewood rather then other lower priced but more important products such as fodder which contribute to livelihoods of poor households. Studies and suggestions for fodder improvement in Community Forestry have been scant. To avoid the further degradation and to increase equity and equality among FUG members incorporation of forage program in Community Forestry was urgently needed. To this end, the Nepal-Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihoods Project (NACRMLP) has initiated Community Forage Program (CFP) focusing on landless poor, women and disadvantage groups on a pilot basis, aiming to enhance fodder supply as well as to stopping further degradation of forests resources. ISSUES Over 90 percent of the total poor of the country live in rural areas. Due to lack of on-farm economical opportunities they have to rely on subsistence on community forest and marginal lands. Livestock is a vital source of livelihood for such communities who rear small livestock (goats, pigs, poultry) and cattle and buffaloes (in part-ownership); .they rely on community resources for fodder. The Project districts Kabhre & Sindhu are major milk producers, supplying about 60 percent of the raw milk in national milk market. Milk production is based on feeding concentrates so over 60 percent of income is spent to buy feed. Forage based livestock farming is cheapest as well as environmentally sound. The Project districts contain 200,344 ha of natural forests (Kabhre 73,801 ha and Sindhu 126,543 ha) of which 45,278 ha have already been handed over to 811 FUGs, comprising 79,200 households (CFD, 2004); 85- 87 percent of households keep livestock (NACRMLP, 2004). Fodder is becoming scarce day by day. Most women members spent about 3 hours to collect a load of grasses and tree leaves. A preliminary study of the feed balance of NACRMLP districts showed that the deficit is up to 60 percent compared to production requirements (NACRMLP, 2003). At national level, MPFS, 1988 estimates that the over all deficit of fodder would be 14.5 percent during 2000-2001 and rise to 21.9 percent by 2010/2011 (demand 4896.7 and supply 3796.7 MT TDN; MPFS, 1988). Ppro-poor households are gradually abandoning livestock farming and shifting in other occupation or seasonal migration. The feed deficit hinders environment conservation; the mid-hills are ecologically sensitive ; soil are poor, infertile and of poor water holding capacity. Over the decades, these degraded community lands have lost their ability to regenerate grass and useful vegetation. Palatable plants have vanished and noxious, weedy ones dominate open patches e.g. Eupatorium spp. They are devoid of ground vegetation and pose a threat to the livelihoods by way of shortage of fodder, fuel, potable water, depletion of ground water, loss of production due to soil erosion and landslide. Encroachment of the community land by some elite is common, so. the area is shrinking. Community Forestry is a major source for generating FUG funds, for development of social, physical and human resources in the community. Most revinue is from the sale of timber and firewood. Pines are widely used for afforestation, this transformed denuded land into greenery but. the growth of herbaceous species has been drastically reduced, and has affected the availability of forest fodder. Most FUGs use of funds on small rural enterprises, mainly in livestock rearing without giving due considerations on fodder development. The project has facilitated 27 FUGs in preparing “Livelihoods Improvement Plan (LIP)” for the social and, economical development of users. To empower the women especially from disadvantage community; the project is facilitating Women Empowerment Program (WEP). The LIP and WEP groups are keen to begin community forage programmes; the line agencies such as District Livestock Services Office, District Forest Office, District Soil Conservation Office are implementing forage programmes with limited resources and small coverage. The Livestok and Forest Department jointly implement a Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Programme in 34 districts The concept is very useful but the result has not been as envisaged (Singh 2004). The line agencies have technical expertise but no specific programme for pro-poor groups, their experience and manpower could be used for pro-poor community forage programmes. The aim of the HMG/Nepal, Tenth Plan (2002-2007) is poverty reduction and intensive management of forest resources. Alternative ways should be explored to use community resources for livelihoods improvement of the FUGs. Oopen and degraded community forests, which are still barren and under utilized provide opportunities for forage cultivation. There is ample scope for the development of understory forage in plantations using shade tolerant perennials In addition to the community forage, assistance to the well- off households with on-farm forage production through incorporation of forage in farming systems would enhance their forage supply. Over-sowing of forage mixture on landslide and roadside could improve the forage supply to pro-poor households as well as contribute in their stabilization. OBJECTIVES • Generate awareness to develop and manage community resources, diversify the productivity, mitigate further environmental degradation and facilitate the pro-poor FUG members in benefit sharing of community resources. • Facilitate formation of Forage Sub-group comprising poor, Dalit (persons outside the class system of Hinduism who was formerly termed as Untouchable) and women members for establishment of a Community Forage Block with mixed perennial forage species for better fodder and seeds & planting materials production and opportunities for income generation. • To mitigate the pressure on forest resources by developing alternative means of forage production from community forests. STRATEGIES: • Easy access on enhanced forage supply from community resources to pro-poor and landless farmers to reduce over exploitation of forest resources, • Diversification of forest products and income especially from degraded community forests; • Create awareness and enhance skills of FUG members on improved forage cultivation; • Promotion of on-farm forage production (without affecting the crop farming), establishment of forage resource centres for planting materials and use of degraded lands (landslide/roadside), • Opportunities for income generation from the sale of green forage/ seeds/ planting materials. PROCEDURES Schematic steps for the facilitation of pro-poor CFP is presented in Figure –1 Figure –1: Process of Pro-poor Community Forage Program Community Forage Program -Lar Mobilization of FUG: Interaction/orientation of the concept, approaches and modalities on community forage programme with LIP/ FUG, WEP groups and other groups/individuals. • Identification of the potential sites; selection/identification of potential users/households focusing on poor, DAG and women within the FUGs. • Discussion on interests, role and responsibilities of selected households as community forage users, • Formation of forage sub-group(s) within the respective FUGs comprising poor and DAG and WEP members (See boxes 1 & 2), • Facilitation to formulate policies, guidelines, action plan for community forage development field /implementation. • Orientation/hands on training on improved forage cultivation and demonstration on forage program to the LIP/WEP facilitator’s. • Support of forage seeds and planting materials through distribution of mini kits to the FUG/LIP facilitators. • Establishment of forage block (using minimal tillage operation); manual works and local planting materials from the respective FUG- sub groups and improved seeds and planting materials from project support. • Facilitation on protection, management, harvesting, and use of forage materials, whenever needed. • Monitoring and follow- up. Salient feature of Community Forage programme: Selection of CF for forage development: • Open/degraded grazing areas within the CF comprising at least 2,500 sq m of land, • Willing to form Forage Sub-group comprising Dalit, women and poorest households, • Willing to provide required labor and other facilities for its management, • Willing to raise the nominal cost of the seeds and planting materials, which could be used for the welfare activities of the poorest households in the communities, • And others as decided by respective FUGs. Types of mini kits packets: A standard forage mini kit comprising 500 gm seed mixture which contain 13 different forages including grasses and legumes. The forage mixtures are designed to provide a range of legumes, grasses, shrubs, herbs and climbers as well as to maximize the land use while increasing the biomass per unit of area. The proportion of the forages was on the basis of availability of seeds; the number of mini kit packets supplied to the FUG/FSGs is based on the size of the forage block. Tillage: Minimum tillage was used for sowing seeds at of 4 kg/ha. Seed were sown in summer (June/July). No fencing were erected. Experiences and outcomes Number of FUGs involved and performance of the forage species in CFP Up to December 2004, 42 FUGs (22 in Kabhre and 20 in Sindhu) have formed "Forage Sub-groups" and established forage block s. A total of 324 kg (144 kg in Kabhre and 210 kg in Sindhu) has been used on about 80- 100 ha.Members involved in CFP are over 535 (including 417 women). The forage establishment, flowering performance and biomass yield was observed. Seven FUGs were selected for data collection, five FUGs (Sungure (Box 2), Siddhiganesh, Ansetar and Jalpa) and two FUGs in Kabhre (Hokse and Saparupa) (Table 1). The performance of the forage in Sindhu FUGs is good conditions to Kabhre FUGs mainly due to late sowing and poor soil conditions. Box –1 Case study: Community Forage Block of Pro-poor disadvantage groups A Pioneer FUG in Community Forage Programme: Bhedigoth, Thulosirubari VDC, Sindhu The Bhedigoth FUG is in Thulosirubari VDC Ward No. 1 & 6, Sindhu Palchok. The FUG comprises 124 households with 56 ha. CF most`of which is planted with Pines and about 20 percent is still open degraded land, used for grazing. The Operational Plan (OP) was approved in July 1998 . The altitude ranges from 1200 to 1350 m. All most all members rear few livestock. The major sources of fodder are grasses and tree leaves collected from CF, agricultural by-products and grazing. Most women members collect fodder and bedding materials. The community Forage programme was conceptualized and tested in June/July 2003 in a Dalit tole Bhedigoth FUG, Thulosirubari, Sindhu Palchok. After a rigorous interaction and steps to implement “Community Forage Programme”, the FUG formed a “ Forage Sub-groups” comprising 25 households of Dalit families. The role and responsibilities of the sub-group was discussed in general assembly and FUGC agreed to allocate an open block for forage development. A field level training required forage seeds (Stylo, joint vetch, Ipil-ipil, Gamba grass, Rhodes, Glycine, Joint vetch, Maku lotus and Wynn cassia and some slips of Mott napier, forage peanut and other local species of fodder trees) were provided and forage block established in August 2003. The chairperson Mr Chandra Dulal was also provided with an additional training on forage seed production at Palpa in January 2004 to enhance the skills on forage and forage seed production and management. Last year, the FSG members have expanded the area under forage as well as in terrace risers on individual’s backyards. Mr Dulal proudly says “the FSG have sold the grasses and generated a fund equals to Rs 3300 (1US$=71 NRs) last year, and that amount has been invested in other economical activities such as off- season vegetable production, goat and pig farming to the poorest members of the group in soft loan. This year, they can earn about Rs 10,000 from the sale of seeds and grasses and the amount will increase in time”. He also added that “Since the establishment of Community Forage block, open grazing of stray animals has been completely stopped, much time have been saved in collection of fodder, the group members are empowered and encouraged to initiate other productive programs”. The Community forage block is serving as a demonstration and learning sites for neighboring FUGs. Preliminary results reveals that the average number of forage plants per square meter was 1058 (range 518 to 1513). The forage which established best were Melinis minutiflora (molasses grass) and Stylosanthes guianensis (stylo) which were 73 and 25 percent respectively other forage comprises only 2 percent of the population. Table –1 Description of community forage blocks SN Name of FUG Total Area (ha) Total members (Female ♀) Yield GM ton/ha 1 Ansetar FUG, Pandhera, Sangachok, SP 0.25 18 ♀ 13 2 Ansetar FUG, Khadkako ahal, Sangachok –3, SP 0.35 40 ♀ 29 3 Ansetar FUG, Devisthan, Jangachok, SP 0.75 40 ♀ 73 4 Sungure FUG, Bistako ahal chaur, Pipaldanda 1 36 ♀ 68 5 Jalpa FUG, school comp, Sanosirubari, Sp 0.25 103 (80 ♀) 73 6 Saparupa, Methinkot, Kp 0.25 24 ♀ 13 7 Panduladevi, Hokse, Kp 0.5 63 (50 ♀ ) 19 Mean yield of forage biomass 324 (264 ♀) 41 Almost all established forages (except Ipil-ipil) were flowering and bearing seeds. Profuse flowering and seeding forage were Joint vetch (Glen & Vilomix), Molasses, Stylo (Plapa, Temperano and Nina), Wynn cassia and Signal. Box –2 Case Study: Community Forage of WEP members Community Forage Programme, Sungure FUG, WEP Groups The Sungure FUG is in Pipaldanda VDC Ward number 3 Sindhu Palchok; a neighboring VDC of Chautara- the district head quarter. There are 130 households and the total community forest area is 125 ha. The major species are Sal, Chilaune, Mahuwa and others. The OP was approved in 13 May 1994. The altitude is about 1200 m. The chairperson is Mr Khadag Bahadur Rayamajhi. Mr. Rayamajhi is also a LIP facilitator. The WEP is also running, Ms Gyani Basnet is a facilitator of WEP. There are 36 WEP members. The FUG has allocated a block of land comprising 20 ropani to the WEP members for community forage development. Project provided hands-on training to the WEP members on improved forage cultivation in situ and required quantity of seeds during the first week of June 2004. Now, the forage is performing very well. The block is on the way to Chautara- Nawalpur road, “every on who passes from the road get impressed and inspired” says Mr Khadag Rayamajhi, Chairperson of Sungure FUG. He further added that “I am very much impressed from the forage program, the barren filed yielding nothings, now turned into bumper forage block, other FUG members are also keen to plant forage in all open forest areas in coming season; we will initiate improved dairy and goat farming program to facilitate the pro-poor FUG members in second stage”. The yield of the improved forage was quite satisfactory; the average yield of fodder in Sindhu is 2.3 Mt DM/ha (Pande, 1997; Pariyar 2004), compared to the normal yield, the yield of green biomass from the CFP was found 41 ton/ha in the preliminary study carried out in December 2004 (which is about 8-10 t DM/ha) Similarly, due to the proportionate legume content the quality of fodder from CFP could also be high compared to native grasses, which are mainly of low nutritive value (Pande 1997). The average production in Kabhre (16 tons green matter/ha) was very low compared to SindhuPalchok (51 tons green matter/ha). On-farm, landslide/roadside and school forage production. In addition to the community forages were established on landslides and roadsides for fodder and to control landslides. To support the land-rich FUG members on-farm forage was facilitated. About 5,400 members on-farm grew improved forage. The main purpose of the FRC was to multiply the vegetative materials for distribution to other members at a nominal charge,distribution of planting materials has begun and is earning income. A separate programme to create awareness on improved forage was started under which over 42000 packets of forage seeds were distributed to students of 161 schools, which created awareness among the students and parents. THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE SUCCESS OF Community forage At the initial stage, start in a demonstration- test site. Take account of all issues raised by the community and refine for further trial. Avoid sites, which are under dispute and encroachment. Preferably choose the site, which is close to the sub-group members hamlet. Take the consensus of the entire community in addition to the respective FUGC; if possible focus on poor and disadvantage groups and/or WEP group. Form the Forage Sub-Group within the FUG from the very beginning and encourage the sub-group to plan, implement and take decisions with the support of main FUGC. Organize training at field level, ensure the participation of the actual beneficiaries (women in most cases)Provide material support such as forage seeds and planting materials which are not available locally. Avoid direct financial support to purchases. Ensure compulsory manual involvement by each households of the sub-group in establishing the forage block (land preparation, live fencing, sowing, management and others), encourage voluntary services and cost sharing, wherever possible. Always use a mixture of planting materials incorporate leguminous browse and establish a separate block for seed production. Identify opportunities for generating employment and income as well as forage production. Link the community based forage and livestock improvement with other family based other income generation such as vegetable and small-animal production to ensure sustainability in the long run. Coordinate and link the programme with the other government/non-government organization for additional technical/material support/facilitation. Develop the capability of the Forage Sub-Group to take part in village community development activities. LESSON LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS:  The formation of sub-groups and allocation of some community forest lands for forage to the poor and DAG created some confusion initially in the community ownership (of that particular block) may transfer to that group e.g. Bhedigoth FUG.  In some cases it was observed that the sub-group of poor and DAGs lack confidence and trust in FUGC (usually dominated by elites), and refused to form a solo group of DAG households only e.g. Sungure FUG.  Establishment of forage block isusually simple, easy and needs less labor (mostly one day input of the members for tillage and sowing of seeds). However, poorer members who depend on daily wages for subsistence find it difficult to spare time for forage establishment e.g. in Sungure FUG, three women members could not provide their manual labor during the seed sowing day, but substituted later.  The contribution of established forage block to overall fodder supply or income is relatively small to individual members, which is less attractive to the poor. So the forage programme should be linked to other income generation such as off season vegetable and bee keeping.  Forage takes time to become productive, most of the perennials only give a significant yield in the second years ater establishment. So, fast growing forages like Mott napier, forage peanut etc should be incorporated to show quick results.  The programme has created significant awareness among FUGs members towards the forage cultivation. Communal forestlands, which were encroached on for personal use have been reoccupied by the forage sub-group to establish forage blocks, and this has raised some doubt and criticism especially from the elites. CONCLUSION: The Community Forage Programme has created lots of awareness and enthusiasm among the FUG members in poor communities. Preliminary observations indicate that the Community Fodder Programme can solve many issues of unequal resource sharing among the Group members and could mitigate the over exploitation of forest resources. However, due to the lack of good governance and equity in Community Forest management, continued facilitation from NACRMLP is important for the institutionalization, as well as sustainable development, of Community Forage Programme which is a potential tool to meet the objectives of the Tenth Plan (2002-2007) to reduce poverty at national level as well as the Millennium Development Goals of poverty reduction at global level. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The support provided by Mr. Satrughan Lal Pradhan and Mr Alan Robertson and all field staff especially Mr Ram Saran BK, Tara Pariyar, Khadag/Kiran Kharel and all others to implement this programme are highly appreciated. The support of DFO, DSCO and DLSO staff for their contribution are also highly acknowledged. REFERENCES:  Allison, G; J Bampton; BR Kandel; ML Shrestha and NK Shrestha 2004: Community forestry and livelihoods: how can community forestry better contribute to the Millennium Development Goals?. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 171-179)  Bhatta, b and Dhakal, B. 2004: Forestry Sector's Role in Nepal's Scio-political Stability: a Critical Analysis of Problems, Prospects and Potentials. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 333-345)  CFD, 2004: Community forest Division, HMG, Nepal  Chhetry, B; P.Francis; M. Gurung; V. Iversen; G.Kafle; A. Pain and J. Seeley, 2004: Increasing opportunities for the poor to access benefits from common pool resources: the case of community forestry in the Terai of Nepal. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 199-207)  DLSO, 2003. District Livestock Services Office, Kabhre Palanchok. Annual Report 2003  Kandel RK and R Subedi, 2004: Pro-poor Community Forestry: some Initiatives from the Field. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 229-237)  Kanel K.R, J. Statz and AR Sharma, 2004: Income distribution and social well being in Community Forestry: Issues, experience and Strategy Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 238-244)  Kanel, KR 2004: Twenty-five years of community Forestry: contribution to Millennium Development Goals, Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 4-18)  Kanel, KR and DR Niraula, 2004. Can rural livelihood be improved in Nepal through community Forestry? Banko Jankari. 14 (1)June 2004  LFP, 2003. Hills Livelihoods Baseline survey, Livelihoods and Forestry Program. Kathmandu, Luintel, H; M,R, Banjade; HR. Neupane and RK Pandey, R.2004: Sustainable Non-Timber Forest Product Management: Issues and ways Forward. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 42-47)  Master Plan Forestry Sector, HMG/Nepal  Mall Y.B.; HR Neupane; PJ Brandy. 2003. Why aren't poor people benefiting more from community forestry? Journal of Forest and livelihoods 3(1) July 2003  NACRMLP, 2003. Ddraft. Strategies for Livestock and Fodder Development in NACRMLP, Districts, Discussion paper, Nepal Australia Community resource management and livelihoods project  NACRMLP 2004. Milestone 7 Draft. Baseline Survey Sindhu Palchok and Kabhre Palanchok.  Neupane, H.R 2003.Contested Impact of Community Forestry on Equity: some evidence from Nepal. Forest and Livelihood: Vol 2(2), 55-61 pp  Nurse, M; DB Khatri; D Paudel and B Pokhrel, 2004: Rural entrepreneur Development: A pro-poor approach to enterprise development through community forestry. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 250-258)  Pande, R. S. 1997: Fodder and Pasture Development in Nepal. Udaya Research and Development Services Pvt. Ltd, Sanepa, Distributor: Ratna Pustak Bhandar, Dillibazaar, Kathmandu, Nepal.1997.  Pariyar, D, 2004. Country Pasture/forage resources profiles Nepal. FAO Grassland and pasture Crops. Website; www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/counprof/Nepal.ht.  Richards, M; M. Maharjan; K .Kanel 2003. Economics, Poverty and Transparency: Measuring Equity in Forest user groups. Journal of Forest and Livelihoods 3 (1), July 2004  Shrestha, M and M Khadka, 2004. Fund mobilization in community forestry: opportunities and constraints for equity-based livelihoods improvement. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 278-285)  Singh BK, 2004. Complementary pro-poor program in community and leasehold forestry. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 195-198).  Timsina, N. 2002. Empowerment or Marginalisation: a debate in community forestry in Nepal. Forest and livelihood: Vol 2(1), 27-33pp 

19. Pro-poor Community Forage Production Programme in the Nepal Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihoods Project, Nepal.

Rameshwar Singh Pande

(Published in : Proceedings of the Workshop on Fodder Oats , Fodder Technology Packages and Small Farm Income generation, Chapter XXIX, Kathmandu, Nepal, 8-11 March 2005 . TCP/NEP/2901-Capacity building for fodder oat technologies in Nepaland, sixth Meeting of the Temperate Asia Pasture and Fodder Network. www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/Proceedings/nepal2005/chapter29)

SUMMARY
The Community Forestry (CF) programme has been ongoing since 1978 and has proved useful and successful in giving communities access to forest resources and improving forest management.It has however, neglected non-timber forest resources, especially forage and has also had limited success in making resources available to the poorest and disadvantage groups. To increase equity in access to community forest the Nepal -Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihoods Project has initiated a Community Forage Programme focusing on landless poor, women and disadvantaged groups on a pilot basis, aiming to enhance fodder supply as well as stopping further degradation of forest resources. This paper describes the methodology of organising such work, socially and technically and reports on preliminary results of fodder production technques.

Key words: Pro-poor, Dalit, Community forest, Forest user group, forage programme, Forage plants.

BACKGROUND
Community Forestry (CF) was devised in 1978 to improve the condition of forest and meet household needs of forest products. Poor households especially rural ones, depend on community resources to meet their daily needs in fodder, bedding, firewood and other).However, small land- holders or households with few on-farm activities have not been benefited as envisaged by the Community Forage programme (Richards et al 2003; Malla et al, 2003; Bhatta & Dhakal 2004; Singh 2004; Chhetri, 2004). Forest products are inequitably distributed among the poor within the community Forest User Groups (FUG) (Timsina 2002; Neupane 2003; Kandel & Subedi 2004; Kanel, Statz and Sharma 2004; Nurse et al 2004; Shrestha and Khadka, 2004). Even so, the significance of Community Forestry has been well proved in empowering users to manage forest resources for their own benefit (Kanel, 2004). Over time, the priority of Community Forestry has shifted from forest protection and management to poverty alleviation & livelihoods improvement (NACRMLP, 2003; LFP, 2003; Allison et al, 2004; Kanel and Niraula, 2004).
Since the inception of Community Forestry, over 1010,740 ha of forest have been handed over to 13,300 FUGs, comprising over 1422,301 households (CFD, 2004). Most Community Forests are close to the human settlement and contribute significantly products: timber and firewood, their value (in FUG fund) is high, but the need for fodder by all strata of people is more important. In Community Forest management, priority has been given to timber and firewood rather then other lower priced but more important products such as fodder which contribute to livelihoods of poor households. Studies and suggestions for fodder improvement in Community Forestry have been scant. To avoid the further degradation and to increase equity and equality among FUG members incorporation of forage program in Community Forestry was urgently needed. To this end, the Nepal-Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihoods Project (NACRMLP) has initiated Community Forage Program (CFP) focusing on landless poor, women and disadvantage groups on a pilot basis, aiming to enhance fodder supply as well as to stopping further degradation of forests resources.
ISSUES
Over 90 percent of the total poor of the country live in rural areas. Due to lack of on-farm economical opportunities they have to rely on subsistence on community forest and marginal lands. Livestock is a vital source of livelihood for such communities who rear small livestock (goats, pigs, poultry) and cattle and buffaloes (in part-ownership); .they rely on community resources for fodder. The Project districts Kabhre & Sindhu are major milk producers, supplying about 60 percent of the raw milk in national milk market. Milk production is based on feeding concentrates so over 60 percent of income is spent to buy feed. Forage based livestock farming is cheapest as well as environmentally sound.
The Project districts contain 200,344 ha of natural forests (Kabhre 73,801 ha and Sindhu 126,543 ha) of which 45,278 ha have already been handed over to 811 FUGs, comprising 79,200 households (CFD, 2004); 85- 87 percent of households keep livestock (NACRMLP, 2004). Fodder is becoming scarce day by day. Most women members spent about 3 hours to collect a load of grasses and tree leaves. A preliminary study of the feed balance of NACRMLP districts showed that the deficit is up to 60 percent compared to production requirements (NACRMLP, 2003). At national level, MPFS, 1988 estimates that the over all deficit of fodder would be 14.5 percent during 2000-2001 and rise to 21.9 percent by 2010/2011 (demand 4896.7 and supply 3796.7 MT TDN; MPFS, 1988). Ppro-poor households are gradually abandoning livestock farming and shifting in other occupation or seasonal migration.
The feed deficit hinders environment conservation; the mid-hills are ecologically sensitive ; soil are poor, infertile and of poor water holding capacity. Over the decades, these degraded community lands have lost their ability to regenerate grass and useful vegetation. Palatable plants have vanished and noxious, weedy ones dominate open patches e.g. Eupatorium spp. They are devoid of ground vegetation and pose a threat to the livelihoods by way of shortage of fodder, fuel, potable water, depletion of ground water, loss of production due to soil erosion and landslide. Encroachment of the community land by some elite is common, so. the area is shrinking.
Community Forestry is a major source for generating FUG funds, for development of social, physical and human resources in the community. Most revinue is from the sale of timber and firewood. Pines are widely used for afforestation, this transformed denuded land into greenery but. the growth of herbaceous species has been drastically reduced, and has affected the availability of forest fodder. Most FUGs use of funds on small rural enterprises, mainly in livestock rearing without giving due considerations on fodder development.
The project has facilitated 27 FUGs in preparing “Livelihoods Improvement Plan (LIP)” for the social and, economical development of users. To empower the women especially from disadvantage community; the project is facilitating Women Empowerment Program (WEP). The LIP and WEP groups are keen to begin community forage programmes; the line agencies such as District Livestock Services Office, District Forest Office, District Soil Conservation Office are implementing forage programmes with limited resources and small coverage. The Livestok and Forest Department jointly implement a Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Programme in 34 districts The concept is very useful but the result has not been as envisaged (Singh 2004). The line agencies have technical expertise but no specific programme for pro-poor groups, their experience and manpower could be used for pro-poor community forage programmes.
The aim of the HMG/Nepal, Tenth Plan (2002-2007) is poverty reduction and intensive management of forest resources. Alternative ways should be explored to use community resources for livelihoods improvement of the FUGs. Oopen and degraded community forests, which are still barren and under utilized provide opportunities for forage cultivation. There is ample scope for the development of understory forage in plantations using shade tolerant perennials In addition to the community forage, assistance to the well- off households with on-farm forage production through incorporation of forage in farming systems would enhance their forage supply. Over-sowing of forage mixture on landslide and roadside could improve the forage supply to pro-poor households as well as contribute in their stabilization.

OBJECTIVES
• Generate awareness to develop and manage community resources, diversify the productivity, mitigate further environmental degradation and facilitate the pro-poor FUG members in benefit sharing of community resources.
• Facilitate formation of Forage Sub-group comprising poor, Dalit (persons outside the class system of Hinduism who was formerly termed as Untouchable) and women members for establishment of a Community Forage Block with mixed perennial forage species for better fodder and seeds & planting materials production and opportunities for income generation.
• To mitigate the pressure on forest resources by developing alternative means of forage production from community forests.

STRATEGIES:
• Easy access on enhanced forage supply from community resources to pro-poor and landless farmers to reduce over exploitation of forest resources,
• Diversification of forest products and income especially from degraded community forests;
• Create awareness and enhance skills of FUG members on improved forage cultivation;
• Promotion of on-farm forage production (without affecting the crop farming), establishment of forage resource centres for planting materials and use of degraded lands (landslide/roadside),
• Opportunities for income generation from the sale of green forage/ seeds/ planting materials.
PROCEDURES
Schematic steps for the facilitation of pro-poor CFP is presented in Figure –1

Figure –1: Process of Pro-poor Community Forage Program Community Forage Program



-Lar


Mobilization of FUG:
Interaction/orientation of the concept, approaches and modalities on community forage programme with LIP/ FUG, WEP groups and other groups/individuals.

• Identification of the potential sites; selection/identification of potential users/households focusing on poor, DAG and women within the FUGs.
• Discussion on interests, role and responsibilities of selected households as community forage users,
• Formation of forage sub-group(s) within the respective FUGs comprising poor and DAG and WEP members (See boxes 1 & 2),
• Facilitation to formulate policies, guidelines, action plan for community forage development field /implementation.
• Orientation/hands on training on improved forage cultivation and demonstration on forage program to the LIP/WEP facilitator’s.
• Support of forage seeds and planting materials through distribution of mini kits to the FUG/LIP facilitators.
• Establishment of forage block (using minimal tillage operation); manual works and local planting materials from the respective FUG- sub groups and improved seeds and planting materials from project support.
• Facilitation on protection, management, harvesting, and use of forage materials, whenever needed.
• Monitoring and follow- up.

Salient feature of Community Forage programme:
Selection of CF for forage development:
• Open/degraded grazing areas within the CF comprising at least 2,500 sq m of land,
• Willing to form Forage Sub-group comprising Dalit, women and poorest households,
• Willing to provide required labor and other facilities for its management,
• Willing to raise the nominal cost of the seeds and planting materials, which could be used for the welfare activities of the poorest households in the communities,
• And others as decided by respective FUGs.

Types of mini kits packets: A standard forage mini kit comprising 500 gm seed mixture which contain 13 different forages including grasses and legumes. The forage mixtures are designed to provide a range of legumes, grasses, shrubs, herbs and climbers as well as to maximize the land use while increasing the biomass per unit of area. The proportion of the forages was on the basis of availability of seeds; the number of mini kit packets supplied to the FUG/FSGs is based on the size of the forage block.

Tillage: Minimum tillage was used for sowing seeds at of 4 kg/ha. Seed were sown in summer (June/July). No fencing were erected.

Experiences and outcomes
Number of FUGs involved and performance of the forage species in CFP
Up to December 2004, 42 FUGs (22 in Kabhre and 20 in Sindhu) have formed "Forage Sub-groups" and established forage block s. A total of 324 kg (144 kg in Kabhre and 210 kg in Sindhu) has been used on about 80- 100 ha.Members involved in CFP are over 535 (including 417 women). The forage establishment, flowering performance and biomass yield was observed. Seven FUGs were selected for data collection, five FUGs (Sungure (Box 2), Siddhiganesh, Ansetar and Jalpa) and two FUGs in Kabhre (Hokse and Saparupa) (Table 1). The performance of the forage in Sindhu FUGs is good conditions to Kabhre FUGs mainly due to late sowing and poor soil conditions.

Box –1 Case study: Community Forage Block of Pro-poor disadvantage groups

A Pioneer FUG in Community Forage Programme: Bhedigoth, Thulosirubari VDC, Sindhu
The Bhedigoth FUG is in Thulosirubari VDC Ward No. 1 & 6, Sindhu Palchok. The FUG comprises 124 households with 56 ha. CF most`of which is planted with Pines and about 20 percent is still open degraded land, used for grazing. The Operational Plan (OP) was approved in July 1998 . The altitude ranges from 1200 to 1350 m. All most all members rear few livestock. The major sources of fodder are grasses and tree leaves collected from CF, agricultural by-products and grazing. Most women members collect fodder and bedding materials.

The community Forage programme was conceptualized and tested in June/July 2003 in a Dalit tole Bhedigoth FUG, Thulosirubari, Sindhu Palchok. After a rigorous interaction and steps to implement “Community Forage Programme”, the FUG formed a “ Forage Sub-groups” comprising 25 households of Dalit families. The role and responsibilities of the sub-group was discussed in general assembly and FUGC agreed to allocate an open block for forage development. A field level training required forage seeds (Stylo, joint vetch, Ipil-ipil, Gamba grass, Rhodes, Glycine, Joint vetch, Maku lotus and Wynn cassia and some slips of Mott napier, forage peanut and other local species of fodder trees) were provided and forage block established in August 2003. The chairperson Mr Chandra Dulal was also provided with an additional training on forage seed production at Palpa in January 2004 to enhance the skills on forage and forage seed production and management. Last year, the FSG members have expanded the area under forage as well as in terrace risers on individual’s backyards. Mr Dulal proudly says “the FSG have sold the grasses and generated a fund equals to Rs 3300 (1US$=71 NRs) last year, and that amount has been invested in other economical activities such as off- season vegetable production, goat and pig farming to the poorest members of the group in soft loan. This year, they can earn about Rs 10,000 from the sale of seeds and grasses and the amount will increase in time”. He also added that “Since the establishment of Community Forage block, open grazing of stray animals has been completely stopped, much time have been saved in collection of fodder, the group members are empowered and encouraged to initiate other productive programs”. The Community forage block is serving as a demonstration and learning sites for neighboring FUGs.

Preliminary results reveals that the average number of forage plants per square meter was 1058 (range 518 to 1513). The forage which established best were Melinis minutiflora (molasses grass) and Stylosanthes guianensis (stylo) which were 73 and 25 percent respectively other forage comprises only 2 percent of the population.

Table –1 Description of community forage blocks
SN Name of FUG Total Area (ha) Total members (Female ♀) Yield GM ton/ha
1 Ansetar FUG, Pandhera, Sangachok, SP 0.25 18 ♀ 13

2 Ansetar FUG, Khadkako ahal, Sangachok –3, SP 0.35 40 ♀ 29

3 Ansetar FUG, Devisthan, Jangachok, SP 0.75 40 ♀ 73

4 Sungure FUG, Bistako ahal chaur, Pipaldanda 1 36 ♀ 68

5 Jalpa FUG, school comp, Sanosirubari, Sp 0.25 103 (80 ♀) 73

6 Saparupa, Methinkot, Kp 0.25 24 ♀ 13
7 Panduladevi, Hokse, Kp 0.5 63 (50 ♀ ) 19
Mean yield of forage biomass 324 (264 ♀) 41

Almost all established forages (except Ipil-ipil) were flowering and bearing seeds. Profuse flowering and seeding forage were Joint vetch (Glen & Vilomix), Molasses, Stylo (Plapa, Temperano and Nina), Wynn cassia and Signal.

Box –2 Case Study: Community Forage of WEP members
Community Forage Programme, Sungure FUG, WEP Groups
The Sungure FUG is in Pipaldanda VDC Ward number 3 Sindhu Palchok; a neighboring VDC of Chautara- the district head quarter. There are 130 households and the total community forest area is 125 ha. The major species are Sal, Chilaune, Mahuwa and others. The OP was approved in 13 May 1994. The altitude is about 1200 m. The chairperson is Mr Khadag Bahadur Rayamajhi. Mr. Rayamajhi is also a LIP facilitator. The WEP is also running, Ms Gyani Basnet is a facilitator of WEP. There are 36 WEP members.
The FUG has allocated a block of land comprising 20 ropani to the WEP members for community forage development. Project provided hands-on training to the WEP members on improved forage cultivation in situ and required quantity of seeds during the first week of June 2004. Now, the forage is performing very well. The block is on the way to Chautara- Nawalpur road, “every on who passes from the road get impressed and inspired” says Mr Khadag Rayamajhi, Chairperson of Sungure FUG. He further added that “I am very much impressed from the forage program, the barren filed yielding nothings, now turned into bumper forage block, other FUG members are also keen to plant forage in all open forest areas in coming season; we will initiate improved dairy and goat farming program to facilitate the pro-poor FUG members in second stage”.

The yield of the improved forage was quite satisfactory; the average yield of fodder in Sindhu is 2.3 Mt DM/ha (Pande, 1997; Pariyar 2004), compared to the normal yield, the yield of green biomass from the CFP was found 41 ton/ha in the preliminary study carried out in December 2004 (which is about 8-10 t DM/ha) Similarly, due to the proportionate legume content the quality of fodder from CFP could also be high compared to native grasses, which are mainly of low nutritive value (Pande 1997). The average production in Kabhre (16 tons green matter/ha) was very low compared to SindhuPalchok (51 tons green matter/ha).

On-farm, landslide/roadside and school forage production.
In addition to the community forages were established on landslides and roadsides for fodder and to control landslides. To support the land-rich FUG members on-farm forage was facilitated. About 5,400 members on-farm grew improved forage. The main purpose of the FRC was to multiply the vegetative materials for distribution to other members at a nominal charge,distribution of planting materials has begun and is earning income. A separate programme to create awareness on improved forage was started under which over 42000 packets of forage seeds were distributed to students of 161 schools, which created awareness among the students and parents.

THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE SUCCESS OF Community forage
At the initial stage, start in a demonstration- test site. Take account of all issues raised by the community and refine for further trial. Avoid sites, which are under dispute and encroachment. Preferably choose the site, which is close to the sub-group members hamlet. Take the consensus of the entire community in addition to the respective FUGC; if possible focus on poor and disadvantage groups and/or WEP group. Form the Forage Sub-Group within the FUG from the very beginning and encourage the sub-group to plan, implement and take decisions with the support of main FUGC. Organize training at field level, ensure the participation of the actual beneficiaries (women in most cases)Provide material support such as forage seeds and planting materials which are not available locally. Avoid direct financial support to purchases. Ensure compulsory manual involvement by each households of the sub-group in establishing the forage block (land preparation, live fencing, sowing, management and others), encourage voluntary services and cost sharing, wherever possible. Always use a mixture of planting materials incorporate leguminous browse and establish a separate block for seed production.
Identify opportunities for generating employment and income as well as forage production. Link the community based forage and livestock improvement with other family based other income generation such as vegetable and small-animal production to ensure sustainability in the long run. Coordinate and link the programme with the other government/non-government organization for additional technical/material support/facilitation. Develop the capability of the Forage Sub-Group to take part in village community development activities.

LESSON LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
 The formation of sub-groups and allocation of some community forest lands for forage to the poor and DAG created some confusion initially in the community ownership (of that particular block) may transfer to that group e.g. Bhedigoth FUG.
 In some cases it was observed that the sub-group of poor and DAGs lack confidence and trust in FUGC (usually dominated by elites), and refused to form a solo group of DAG households only e.g. Sungure FUG.
 Establishment of forage block isusually simple, easy and needs less labor (mostly one day input of the members for tillage and sowing of seeds). However, poorer members who depend on daily wages for subsistence find it difficult to spare time for forage establishment e.g. in Sungure FUG, three women members could not provide their manual labor during the seed sowing day, but substituted later.
 The contribution of established forage block to overall fodder supply or income is relatively small to individual members, which is less attractive to the poor. So the forage programme should be linked to other income generation such as off season vegetable and bee keeping.
 Forage takes time to become productive, most of the perennials only give a significant yield in the second years ater establishment. So, fast growing forages like Mott napier, forage peanut etc should be incorporated to show quick results.
 The programme has created significant awareness among FUGs members towards the forage cultivation. Communal forestlands, which were encroached on for personal use have been reoccupied by the forage sub-group to establish forage blocks, and this has raised some doubt and criticism especially from the elites.
CONCLUSION:
The Community Forage Programme has created lots of awareness and enthusiasm among the FUG members in poor communities. Preliminary observations indicate that the Community Fodder Programme can solve many issues of unequal resource sharing among the Group members and could mitigate the over exploitation of forest resources. However, due to the lack of good governance and equity in Community Forest management, continued facilitation from NACRMLP is important for the institutionalization, as well as sustainable development, of Community Forage Programme which is a potential tool to meet the objectives of the Tenth Plan (2002-2007) to reduce poverty at national level as well as the Millennium Development Goals of poverty reduction at global level.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
The support provided by Mr. Satrughan Lal Pradhan and Mr Alan Robertson and all field staff especially Mr Ram Saran BK, Tara Pariyar, Khadag/Kiran Kharel and all others to implement this programme are highly appreciated. The support of DFO, DSCO and DLSO staff for their contribution are also highly acknowledged.
REFERENCES:
 Allison, G; J Bampton; BR Kandel; ML Shrestha and NK Shrestha 2004: Community forestry and livelihoods: how can community forestry better contribute to the Millennium Development Goals?. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 171-179)
 Bhatta, b and Dhakal, B. 2004: Forestry Sector's Role in Nepal's Scio-political Stability: a Critical Analysis of Problems, Prospects and Potentials. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 333-345)
 CFD, 2004: Community forest Division, HMG, Nepal
 Chhetry, B; P.Francis; M. Gurung; V. Iversen; G.Kafle; A. Pain and J. Seeley, 2004: Increasing opportunities for the poor to access benefits from common pool resources: the case of community forestry in the Terai of Nepal. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 199-207)
 DLSO, 2003. District Livestock Services Office, Kabhre Palanchok. Annual Report 2003
 Kandel RK and R Subedi, 2004: Pro-poor Community Forestry: some Initiatives from the Field. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 229-237)
 Kanel K.R, J. Statz and AR Sharma, 2004: Income distribution and social well being in Community Forestry: Issues, experience and Strategy Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 238-244)
 Kanel, KR 2004: Twenty-five years of community Forestry: contribution to Millennium Development Goals, Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 4-18)
 Kanel, KR and DR Niraula, 2004. Can rural livelihood be improved in Nepal through community Forestry? Banko Jankari. 14 (1)June 2004
 LFP, 2003. Hills Livelihoods Baseline survey, Livelihoods and Forestry Program. Kathmandu, Luintel, H; M,R, Banjade; HR. Neupane and RK Pandey, R.2004: Sustainable Non-Timber Forest Product Management: Issues and ways Forward. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 42-47)
 Master Plan Forestry Sector, HMG/Nepal
 Mall Y.B.; HR Neupane; PJ Brandy. 2003. Why aren't poor people benefiting more from community forestry? Journal of Forest and livelihoods 3(1) July 2003
 NACRMLP, 2003. Ddraft. Strategies for Livestock and Fodder Development in NACRMLP, Districts, Discussion paper, Nepal Australia Community resource management and livelihoods project
 NACRMLP 2004. Milestone 7 Draft. Baseline Survey Sindhu Palchok and Kabhre Palanchok.
 Neupane, H.R 2003.Contested Impact of Community Forestry on Equity: some evidence from Nepal. Forest and Livelihood: Vol 2(2), 55-61 pp
 Nurse, M; DB Khatri; D Paudel and B Pokhrel, 2004: Rural entrepreneur Development: A pro-poor approach to enterprise development through community forestry. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 250-258)
 Pande, R. S. 1997: Fodder and Pasture Development in Nepal. Udaya Research and Development Services Pvt. Ltd, Sanepa, Distributor: Ratna Pustak Bhandar, Dillibazaar, Kathmandu, Nepal.1997.
 Pariyar, D, 2004. Country Pasture/forage resources profiles Nepal. FAO Grassland and pasture Crops. Website; www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/counprof/Nepal.ht.
 Richards, M; M. Maharjan; K .Kanel 2003. Economics, Poverty and Transparency: Measuring Equity in Forest user groups. Journal of Forest and Livelihoods 3 (1), July 2004
 Shrestha, M and M Khadka, 2004. Fund mobilization in community forestry: opportunities and constraints for equity-based livelihoods improvement. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 278-285)
 Singh BK, 2004. Complementary pro-poor program in community and leasehold forestry. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 195-198).
 Timsina, N. 2002. Empowerment or Marginalisation: a debate in community forestry in Nepal. Forest and livelihood: Vol 2(1), 27-33pp



